linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator

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]

Message-ID: <20131204024203.GB19709@lge.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:42:03 +0900
From:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, azurIt <azurit@...ox.sk>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christian Casteyde <casteyde.christian@...e.fr>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the
 allocator

On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 06:07:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:52:18 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> wrote:
> 
> > SLUB already try to allocate high order page with clearing __GFP_NOFAIL.
> > But, when allocating shadow page for kmemcheck, it missed clearing
> > the flag. This trigger WARN_ON_ONCE() reported by Christian Casteyde.
> > 
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65991
> > 
> > This patch fix this situation by using same allocation flag as original
> > allocation.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Christian Casteyde <casteyde.christian@...e.fr>
> > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index 545a170..3dd28b1 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -1335,11 +1335,12 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
> >  	page = alloc_slab_page(alloc_gfp, node, oo);
> >  	if (unlikely(!page)) {
> >  		oo = s->min;
> 
> What is the value of s->min?  Please tell me it's zero.

s->min is calculated by get_order(object size).
So if object size is less or equal than PAGE_SIZE, it would return zero.

> 
> > +		alloc_gfp = flags;
> >  		/*
> >  		 * Allocation may have failed due to fragmentation.
> >  		 * Try a lower order alloc if possible
> >  		 */
> > -		page = alloc_slab_page(flags, node, oo);
> > +		page = alloc_slab_page(alloc_gfp, node, oo);
> >  
> >  		if (page)
> >  			stat(s, ORDER_FALLBACK);
> 
> This change doesn't actually do anything.

It set alloc_gfp to flags and we use alloc_gfp later.
It means that we try to allocate same order and flag as original allocation.

> 
> > @@ -1349,7 +1350,7 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
> >  		&& !(s->flags & (SLAB_NOTRACK | DEBUG_DEFAULT_FLAGS))) {
> >  		int pages = 1 << oo_order(oo);
> >  
> > -		kmemcheck_alloc_shadow(page, oo_order(oo), flags, node);
> > +		kmemcheck_alloc_shadow(page, oo_order(oo), alloc_gfp, node);
> 
> That seems reasonable, assuming kmemcheck can handle the allocation
> failure.

Yes, I looked at kmemcheck_alloc_shadow() at a glance, it can handle failure.

> 
> Still I dislike this practice of using unnecessarily large allocations.
> What does it gain us?  Slightly improved object packing density. 
> Anything else?

There is no my likes and dislikes here.
Perhaps, Christoph would answer it.

Thanks.
--
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/