linux-kernel - Re: [patch] mm, oom: stop reclaiming if GFP

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: <c2c2f453-9cb3-72b9-a484-03652e8ce10e@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Sun, 26 Apr 2020 12:04:56 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: stop reclaiming if GFP_ATOMIC will start failing
 soon

On 2020/04/26 9:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Well, what's really going on here?
> 
> Is networking potentially consuming an unbounded amount of memory?  If
> so, then killing a process will just cause networking to consume more
> memory then hit against the same thing.  So presumably the answer is
> "no, the watermarks are inappropriately set for this workload".
Maybe somebody is abusing __GFP_MEMALLOC allocations. David, please include whole
context (e.g. which function from which process) instead of only memory stat lines.