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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 08:57:12 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org, peterz@...radead.org, neilb@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, mgorman@...e.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rcu/tree: Use GFP_MEMALLOC for alloc memory to free memory pattern On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 05:28:05PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 01-04-20 15:22:58, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > We call it from atomic context, so we can not sleep, also we do not have > > > > any existing context coming from the caller. I see that GFP_ATOMIC is high-level > > > > flag and is differ from __GFP_ATOMIC. It is defined as: > > > > > > > > #define GFP_ATOMIC (__GFP_HIGH|__GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM) > > > > > > > > so basically we would like to have __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM that is included in it, > > > > because it will also help in case of high memory pressure and wake-up kswapd to > > > > reclaim memory. > > > > > > > > We also can extract: > > > > > > > > __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGH | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL | __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM > > > > > > > > but that is longer then > > > > > > > > GFP_ATMOC | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL > > > > > > OK, if you are always in the atomic context then GFP_ATOMIC is > > > sufficient. __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL will make no difference for allocations > > > which do not reclaim (and thus not retry). Sorry this was not clear to > > > me from the previous description. > > > > > Ahh. OK. Then adding __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL to GFP_ATOMIC will not make any effect. > > > > Thank you for your explanation! > > Welcome. I wish all those gfp flags were really clear but I fully > understand that people who are not working with MM regurarly might find > it confusing. Btw. have __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL is documented in gfp.h and > it is documented as the reclaim modifier which should imply that it has > no effect when the reclaim is not allowed which is the case for any non > sleeping allocation. If that relation was not immediately obvious then I > think we need to make it explicit. Would you find it useful? > > E.g. One nit below, but either way: Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h > index e3ab1c0d9140..8f09cefdfa7b 100644 > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h > @@ -127,6 +127,8 @@ struct vm_area_struct; > * > * Reclaim modifiers > * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > + * Please note that all the folloging flags are only applicable to sleepable s/folloging/following/ > + * allocations (e.g. %GFP_NOWAIT and %GFP_ATOMIC will ignore them). > * > * %__GFP_IO can start physical IO. > * > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists