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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 13:55:31 +0100 From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> To: mhocko@...nel.org, 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: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to memory reserves On 11.11.2015 14:48, mhocko@...nel.org wrote: > 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"); It seems redundant to me to keep the WARN_ON_ONCE also above in the if () part? Also s/gfp_nofail/GFP_NOFAIL/ for consistency? Hm and probably out of scope of your patch, but I understand the WARN_ONCE (WARN_ON_ONCE) to be _ONCE just to prevent a flood from a single task looping here. But for distinct tasks and potentially far away in time, wouldn't we want to see all the warnings? Would that be feasible to implement? > + } > + } > out: > mutex_unlock(&oom_lock); > return page; > -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists