linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] Page allocation failures with newest kernels

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160602135226.GX2527@techsingularity.net>
Date:	Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:52:26 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:	Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>
Cc:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Yehuda Yitschak <yehuday@...vell.com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@...ihalf.com>,
	Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
	Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>,
	Gregory Clément 
	<gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Page allocation failures with newest kernels

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:48:38AM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote:
> Hi Will,
> 
> I think I found a right trace. Following one-liner fixes the issue
> beginning from v4.2-rc1 up to v4.4 included:
> 
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ static inline bool
> early_page_uninitialised(unsigned long pfn)
> 
>  static inline bool early_page_nid_uninitialised(unsigned long pfn, int nid)
>  {
> -       return false;
> +       return true;
>  }
> 

How does that make a difference in v4.4 since commit
974a786e63c96a2401a78ddba926f34c128474f1 removed the only
early_page_nid_uninitialised() ? It further doesn't make sense if deferred
memory initialisation is not enabled as the pages will always be
initialised.

> From what I understood, now order-0 allocation keep no reserve at all.

Watermarks should still be preserved. zone_watermark_ok is still there.
What might change is the size of reserves for high-order atomic
allocations only. Fragmentation shouldn't be a factor. I'm missing some
major part of the picture.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs