linux-kernel - [PATCH -resend] jbd2: revert must-not-fail allocation loops back to 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1433770124-19614-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz>
Date:	Mon,  8 Jun 2015 15:28:44 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH -resend] jbd2: revert must-not-fail allocation loops back to GFP_NOFAIL

This basically reverts 47def82672b3 (jbd2: Remove __GFP_NOFAIL from jbd2
layer). The deprecation of __GFP_NOFAIL was a bad choice because it led
to open coding the endless loop around the allocator rather than
removing the dependency on the non failing allocation. So the
deprecation was a clear failure and the reality tells us that
__GFP_NOFAIL is not even close to go away.

It is still true that __GFP_NOFAIL allocations are generally discouraged
and new uses should be evaluated and an alternative (pre-allocations or
reservations) should be considered but it doesn't make any sense to lie
the allocator about the requirements. Allocator can take steps to help
making a progress if it knows the requirements.

Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
---

Hi, 
this has been posted few months ago
(http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=142530454419654&w=2) but it hasn't
gone anywhere so I am reposting. I've just rebased it on top of the
ext4/for-linus tree. It wasn't clear to me which branch should I use so
I've just picked this one as it was one of the most recently updated.

 fs/jbd2/journal.c     | 11 +----------
 fs/jbd2/transaction.c | 20 +++++++-------------
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/jbd2/journal.c b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
index b96bd8076b70..0bc333b4a594 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/journal.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
@@ -371,16 +371,7 @@ int jbd2_journal_write_metadata_buffer(transaction_t *transaction,
 	 */
 	J_ASSERT_BH(bh_in, buffer_jbddirty(bh_in));
 
-retry_alloc:
-	new_bh = alloc_buffer_head(GFP_NOFS);
-	if (!new_bh) {
-		/*
-		 * Failure is not an option, but __GFP_NOFAIL is going
-		 * away; so we retry ourselves here.
-		 */
-		congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
-		goto retry_alloc;
-	}
+	new_bh = alloc_buffer_head(GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL);
 
 	/* keep subsequent assertions sane */
 	atomic_set(&new_bh->b_count, 1);
diff --git a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
index ff2f2e6ad311..799242cecffb 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
@@ -278,22 +278,16 @@ static int start_this_handle(journal_t *journal, handle_t *handle,
 
 alloc_transaction:
 	if (!journal->j_running_transaction) {
+		/*
+		 * If __GFP_FS is not present, then we may be being called from
+		 * inside the fs writeback layer, so we MUST NOT fail.
+		 */
+		if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) == 0)
+			gfp_mask |= __GFP_NOFAIL;
 		new_transaction = kmem_cache_zalloc(transaction_cache,
 						    gfp_mask);
-		if (!new_transaction) {
-			/*
-			 * If __GFP_FS is not present, then we may be
-			 * being called from inside the fs writeback
-			 * layer, so we MUST NOT fail.  Since
-			 * __GFP_NOFAIL is going away, we will arrange
-			 * to retry the allocation ourselves.
-			 */
-			if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) == 0) {
-				congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
-				goto alloc_transaction;
-			}
+		if (!new_transaction)
 			return -ENOMEM;
-		}
 	}
 
 	jbd_debug(3, "New handle %p going live.\n", handle);
-- 
2.1.4

--
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/