linux-kernel - [PATCH] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to memory reserves

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]

Date:	Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:48:17 +0100
From:	mhocko@...nel.org
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: [PATCH] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to memory reserves

From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

__GFP_NOFAIL is a big hammer used to ensure that the allocation
request can never fail. This is a strong requirement and as such
it also deserves a special treatment when the system is OOM. The
primary problem here is that the allocation request might have
come with some locks held and the oom victim might be blocked
on the same locks. This is basically an OOM deadlock situation.

This patch tries to reduce the risk of such a deadlocks by giving
__GFP_NOFAIL allocations a special treatment and let them dive into
memory reserves after oom killer invocation. This should help them
to make a progress and release resources they are holding. The OOM
victim should compensate for the reserves consumption.

Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
---

Hi,
this has been posted previously as a part of larger GFP_NOFS related
patch set (http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1438768284-30927-1-git-send-email-mhocko%40kernel.org)
but Andrea was asking basically the same thing at LSF early this year
(I cannot seem to find it in any public archive though). I think the
patch makes some sense on its own.

Comments?

 mm/page_alloc.c | 10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 8034909faad2..d30bce9d7ac8 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -2766,8 +2766,16 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
 			goto out;
 	}
 	/* Exhausted what can be done so it's blamo time */
-	if (out_of_memory(&oc) || WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
+	if (out_of_memory(&oc) || WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) {
 		*did_some_progress = 1;
+
+		if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) {
+			page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, order,
+					ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS|ALLOC_CPUSET, ac);
+			WARN_ONCE(!page, "Unable to fullfil gfp_nofail allocation."
+				    " Consider increasing min_free_kbytes.\n");
+		}
+	}
 out:
 	mutex_unlock(&oom_lock);
 	return page;
-- 
2.6.2

--
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/