linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/9] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and __GFP

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:	Thu, 8 May 2014 14:28:48 -0400
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/9] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and
 __GFP_NOFAIL charges

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 04:43:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-04-14 16:25:37, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > There is no reason why oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges should
> > try to reclaim only once when every other charge tries several times
> > before giving up.  Make them all retry the same number of times.
> 
> I guess the idea whas that oom disabled (THP) allocation can fallback to
> a smaller allocation. I would suspect this would increase latency for
> THP page faults.

If it does, we should probably teach THP to use __GFP_NORETRY.

On that note, __GFP_NORETRY is currently useless for memcg because it
has !__GFP_WAIT semantics...  I'll include a fix for that in v2.
--
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/