linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/vmalloc: add support for __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: <163520277623.16092.15759069160856953654@noble.neil.brown.name>
Date:   Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:59:36 +1100
From:   "NeilBrown" <neilb@...e.de>
To:     "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, "Dave Chinner" <david@...morbit.com>,
        "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Uladzislau Rezki" <urezki@...il.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        "LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Ilya Dryomov" <idryomov@...il.com>,
        "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL

On Tue, 26 Oct 2021, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> 
> Dave Chinner has mentioned that some of the xfs code would benefit from
> kvmalloc support for __GFP_NOFAIL because they have allocations that
> cannot fail and they do not fit into a single page.
> 
> The larg part of the vmalloc implementation already complies with the

*large*

> given gfp flags so there is no work for those to be done. The area
> and page table allocations are an exception to that. Implement a retry
> loop for those.
> 
> Add a short sleep before retrying. 1 jiffy is a completely random
> timeout. Ideally the retry would wait for an explicit event - e.g.
> a change to the vmalloc space change if the failure was caused by
> the space fragmentation or depletion. But there are multiple different
> reasons to retry and this could become much more complex. Keep the retry
> simple for now and just sleep to prevent from hogging CPUs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmalloc.c | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index c6cc77d2f366..602649919a9d 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -2941,8 +2941,12 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>  	else if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS | __GFP_IO)) == 0)
>  		flags = memalloc_noio_save();
>  
> -	ret = vmap_pages_range(addr, addr + size, prot, area->pages,
> +	do {
> +		ret = vmap_pages_range(addr, addr + size, prot, area->pages,
>  			page_shift);
> +		if (ret < 0)
> +			schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> +	} while ((gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (ret < 0));
>  
>  	if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS | __GFP_IO)) == __GFP_IO)
>  		memalloc_nofs_restore(flags);
> @@ -3032,6 +3036,10 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
>  		warn_alloc(gfp_mask, NULL,
>  			"vmalloc error: size %lu, vm_struct allocation failed",
>  			real_size);
> +		if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) {
> +			schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> +			goto again;
> +		}

Shouldn't the retry happen *before* the warning?

NeilBrown


>  		goto fail;
>  	}
>  
> -- 
> 2.30.2
> 
>