linux-kernel - Re: OOM: Better, but still there on

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: <20161216155808.12809-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:58:06 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Nils Holland <nholland@...ys.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: OOM: Better, but still there on

On Fri 16-12-16 08:39:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> That being said, the OOM killer invocation is clearly pointless and
> pre-mature. We normally do not invoke it normally for GFP_NOFS requests
> exactly for these reasons. But this is GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL which
> behaves differently. I am about to change that but my last attempt [1]
> has to be rethought.
> 
> Now another thing is that the __GFP_NOFAIL which has this nasty side
> effect has been introduced by me d1b5c5671d01 ("btrfs: Prevent from
> early transaction abort") in 4.3 so I am quite surprised that this has
> shown up only in 4.8. Anyway there might be some other changes in the
> btrfs which could make it more subtle.
> 
> I believe the right way to go around this is to pursue what I've started
> in [1]. I will try to prepare something for testing today for you. Stay
> tuned. But I would be really happy if somebody from the btrfs camp could
> check the NOFS aspect of this allocation. We have already seen
> allocation stalls from this path quite recently

Could you try to run with the two following patches?