linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 02/13] mm, page_alloc: set alloc

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: <354b700b-0dee-32a8-2ee6-17a78ba299b8@suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 31 May 2016 09:59:36 +0200
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	mhocko@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	riel@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
	hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 02/13] mm, page_alloc: set alloc_flags only once in slowpath

On 05/31/2016 08:20 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> >From 68f09f1d4381c7451238b4575557580380d8bf30 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:51:17 +0200
>> Subject: [RFC 02/13] mm, page_alloc: set alloc_flags only once in slowpath
>>
>> In __alloc_pages_slowpath(), alloc_flags doesn't change after it's initialized,
>> so move the initialization above the retry: label. Also make the comment above
>> the initialization more descriptive.
>>
>> The only exception in the alloc_flags being constant is ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS,
>> which may change due to TIF_MEMDIE being set on the allocating thread. We can
>> fix this, and make the code simpler and a bit more effective at the same time,
>> by moving the part that determines ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS from
>> gfp_to_alloc_flags() to gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed(). This means we don't have to
>> mask out ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS in several places in __alloc_pages_slowpath()
>> anymore.  The only test for the flag can instead call gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed().
>
> Your patch looks correct to me but it makes me wonder something.
> Why do we need to mask out ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS in several places? If
> some requestors have ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS flag, he will
> eventually do ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS allocation in retry loop. I don't
> understand what's the merit of masking out it.

I can think of a reason. If e.g. reclaim makes free pages above 
watermark in the 4th zone in the zonelist, we would like the subsequent 
get_page_from_freelist() to succeed in that 4th zone. Passing 
ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS there would likely succeed in the first zone, 
needlessly below the watermark.

But this actually makes no difference, since the ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS 
attempt precedes reclaim/compaction attempts. It probably shouldn't...

> Thanks.
>