[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190327182158.GS10344@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:21:58 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org,
rientjes@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] kmemleak: survive in a low-memory situation
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 05:29:57PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 09:44:32AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > As long as there is an implicit __GFP_NOFAIL then kmemleak is simply
> > broken no matter what other gfp flags you play with. Has anybody looked
> > at some sort of preallocation where gfpflags_allow_blocking context
> > allocate objects into a pool that non-sleeping allocations can eat from?
>
> Quick attempt below and it needs some more testing (pretty random pick
> of the EMERGENCY_POOL_SIZE value). Also, with __GFP_NOFAIL removed, are
> the other flags safe or we should trim them further?
Why not use mempool?
> #define gfp_kmemleak_mask(gfp) (((gfp) & (GFP_KERNEL | GFP_ATOMIC)) | \
> __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | \
> - __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NOFAIL)
> + __GFP_NOWARN)
Why GFP_NORETRY? And if I have specified one of the other retry policies
in my gfp flags, you should presumably clear that off before setting
GFP_NORETRY.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists