| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20160308101016.GC13542@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:10:16 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more
On Tue 08-03-16 10:52:15, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 10:46 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> >>> @@ -3294,6 +3289,18 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> >>> did_some_progress > 0, no_progress_loops))
> >>> goto retry;
> >>>
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * !costly allocations are really important and we have to make sure
> >>> + * the compaction wasn't deferred or didn't bail out early due to locks
> >>> + * contention before we go OOM.
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (order && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) {
> >>> + if (compact_result <= COMPACT_CONTINUE)
> >>
> >> Same here.
> >> I was going to say that this didn't have effect on Sergey's test, but
> >> turns out it did :)
> >
> > This should work as expected because compact_result is unsigned long
> > and so this is the unsigned arithmetic. I can make
> > #define COMPACT_NONE -1UL
> >
> > to make the intention more obvious if you prefer, though.
>
> Well, what wasn't obvious to me is actually that here (unlike in the
> test above) it was actually intended that COMPACT_NONE doesn't result in
> a retry. But it makes sense, otherwise we would retry endlessly if
> reclaim couldn't form a higher-order page, right.
Yeah, that was the whole point. An alternative would be moving the test
into should_compact_retry(order, compact_result, contended_compaction)
which would be CONFIG_COMPACTION specific so we can get rid of the
COMPACT_NONE altogether. Something like the following. We would lose the
always initialized compact_result but this would matter only for
order==0 and we check for that. Even gcc doesn't complain.
A more important question is whether the criteria I have chosen are
reasonable and reasonably independent on the particular implementation
of the compaction. I still cannot convince myself about the convergence
here. Is it possible that the compaction would keep returning
compact_result <= COMPACT_CONTINUE while not making any progress at all?
Sure we can see a case where somebody is stealing the compacted blocks
but that is very same with the order-0 where parallel mem eaters will
piggy back on the reclaimer and there is no upper boundary as well well.
---
diff --git a/include/linux/compaction.h b/include/linux/compaction.h
index a4cec4a03f7d..4cd4ddf64cc7 100644
--- a/include/linux/compaction.h
+++ b/include/linux/compaction.h
@@ -1,8 +1,6 @@
#ifndef _LINUX_COMPACTION_H
#define _LINUX_COMPACTION_H
-/* compaction disabled */
-#define COMPACT_NONE -1
/* Return values for compact_zone() and try_to_compact_pages() */
/* compaction didn't start as it was deferred due to past failures */
#define COMPACT_DEFERRED 0
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index f89e3cbfdf90..c5932a218fc6 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -2823,10 +2823,8 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
{
struct page *page;
- if (!order) {
- *compact_result = COMPACT_NONE;
+ if (!order)
return NULL;
- }
current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC;
*compact_result = try_to_compact_pages(gfp_mask, order, alloc_flags, ac,
@@ -2864,6 +2862,25 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
return NULL;
}
+
+static inline bool
+should_compact_retry(unsigned int order, unsigned long compact_result,
+ int contended_compaction)
+{
+ /*
+ * !costly allocations are really important and we have to make sure
+ * the compaction wasn't deferred or didn't bail out early due to locks
+ * contention before we go OOM.
+ */
+ if (order && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) {
+ if (compact_result <= COMPACT_CONTINUE)
+ return true;
+ if (contended_compaction > COMPACT_CONTENDED_NONE)
+ return true;
+ }
+
+ return false;
+}
#else
static inline struct page *
__alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
@@ -2871,9 +2888,15 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
enum migrate_mode mode, int *contended_compaction,
unsigned long *compact_result)
{
- *compact_result = COMPACT_NONE;
return NULL;
}
+
+static inline bool
+should_compact_retry(unsigned int order, unsigned long compact_result,
+ int contended_compaction)
+{
+ return false;
+}
#endif /* CONFIG_COMPACTION */
/* Perform direct synchronous page reclaim */
@@ -3289,17 +3312,8 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
did_some_progress > 0, no_progress_loops))
goto retry;
- /*
- * !costly allocations are really important and we have to make sure
- * the compaction wasn't deferred or didn't bail out early due to locks
- * contention before we go OOM.
- */
- if (order && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) {
- if (compact_result <= COMPACT_CONTINUE)
- goto retry;
- if (contended_compaction > COMPACT_CONTENDED_NONE)
- goto retry;
- }
+ if (should_compact_retry(order, compact_result, contended_compaction))
+ goto retry;
/* Reclaim has failed us, start killing things */
page = __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_mask, order, ac, &did_some_progress);
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists