linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] mm: fix OOMs for binding workloads to movable zone only node

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201106103557.GC7247@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:35:57 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        ying.huang@...el.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] mm: fix OOMs for binding workloads to movable
 zone only node

On Fri 06-11-20 17:08:57, Feng Tang wrote:
[...]
> You are right, there are quiet several types of page allocations failures.
> The callstack in patch 2/2 is a GFP_HIGHUSER from pipe_write, and there
> are more types of kernel allocation requests which will got blocked by
> the differnt  check. My RFC patch just gave a easiest one-for-all hack to
> let them bypass it.
> 
> Do we need to tackle them case by case?

No, I do not think, how we can change those __GFP_HARDWALL without
breaking the isolation.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs