linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm, tree wide: replace __GFP_REPEAT by __GFP_RETRY

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: <82f5331e-8a3d-ed61-3d5d-3dfcbf557072@suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:17:30 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm, tree wide: replace __GFP_REPEAT by
 __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL with more useful semantic

On 06/26/2017 02:14 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 26-06-17 13:45:19, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 06/23/2017 10:53 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> - GFP_KERNEL - both background and direct reclaim are allowed and the
>>>   _default_ page allocator behavior is used. That means that !costly
>>>   allocation requests are basically nofail (unless the requesting task
>>>   is killed by the OOM killer)
>>
>> Should we explicitly point out that failure must be handled? After lots
>> of talking about "too small to fail", people might get the wrong impression.
> 
> OK. What about the following.
> "That means that !costly allocation requests are basically nofail but
> there is no guarantee of thaat behavior so failures have to be checked

                           that

> properly by callers (e.g. OOM killer victim is allowed to fail
> currently).

Looks good, thanks!