linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/3] mm, oom: refactor oom detection

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: <20151030082323.GB18429@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:23:23 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] mm, oom: refactor oom detection

On Fri 30-10-15 14:23:59, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On 2015/10/30 0:17, mhocko@...nel.org wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -3135,13 +3145,56 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> >   	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)
> >   		goto noretry;
> >   
> > -	/* Keep reclaiming pages as long as there is reasonable progress */
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Do not retry high order allocations unless they are __GFP_REPEAT
> > +	 * and even then do not retry endlessly.
> > +	 */
> >   	pages_reclaimed += did_some_progress;
> > -	if ((did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) ||
> > -	    ((gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT) && pages_reclaimed < (1 << order))) {
> > -		/* Wait for some write requests to complete then retry */
> > -		wait_iff_congested(ac->preferred_zone, BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
> > -		goto retry;
> > +	if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) {
> > +		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT) || pages_reclaimed >= (1<<order))
> > +			goto noretry;
> > +
> > +		if (did_some_progress)
> > +			goto retry;
> 
> why directly retry here ?

Because I wanted to preserve the previous logic for GFP_REPEAT as much
as possible here and do an incremental change in the later patch.

[...]

> > @@ -3150,8 +3203,10 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> >   		goto got_pg;
> >   
> >   	/* Retry as long as the OOM killer is making progress */
> > -	if (did_some_progress)
> > +	if (did_some_progress) {
> > +		stall_backoff = 0;
> >   		goto retry;
> > +	}
> 
> Umm ? I'm sorry that I didn't notice page allocation may fail even
> if order < PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER.  I thought old logic ignores
> did_some_progress. It seems a big change.

__alloc_pages_may_oom will set did_some_progress

> So, now, 0-order page allocation may fail in a OOM situation ?

No they don't normally and this patch doesn't change the logic here.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/