linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 06/14] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:34:15 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/14] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure

On 10/20/2012 12:34 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
> 
>>>>> What about gfp & __GFP_FS?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you intend to prevent or allow OOM under that flag? I personally
>>>> think that anything that accepts to be OOM-killed should have GFP_WAIT
>>>> set, so that ought to be enough.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The oom killer in the page allocator cannot trigger without __GFP_FS 
>>> because direct reclaim has little chance of being very successful and 
>>> thus we end up needlessly killing processes, and that tends to happen 
>>> quite a bit if we dont check for it.  Seems like this would also happen 
>>> with memcg if mem_cgroup_reclaim() has a large probability of failing?
>>>
>>
>> I can indeed see tests for GFP_FS in some key locations in mm/ before
>> calling the OOM Killer.
>>
>> Should I test for GFP_IO as well?
> 
> It's not really necessary, if __GFP_IO isn't set then it wouldn't make 
> sense for __GFP_FS to be set.
> 
>> If the idea is preventing OOM to
>> trigger for allocations that can write their pages back, how would you
>> feel about the following test:
>>
>> may_oom = (gfp & GFP_KERNEL) && !(gfp & __GFP_NORETRY) ?
>>
> 
> I would simply copy the logic from the page allocator and only trigger oom 
> for __GFP_FS and !__GFP_NORETRY.
> 

That seems reasonable to me. Michal ?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/