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]

Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:41:30 +0900
From:	Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
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 2015/10/30 17:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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.
>

I see.

> [...]
>
>>> @@ -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.
>

I understand your patch doesn't change the behavior.
Looking into __alloc_pages_may_oom(), *did_some_progress is finally set by

      if (out_of_memory(&oc) || WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
                 *did_some_progress = 1;

...depends on out_of_memory() return value.
Now, allocation may fail if oom-killer is disabled.... Isn't it complicated ?

Shouldn't we have

  if (order < PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
     goto retry;

here ?

Thanks,
-Kame






--
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/