linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm/page_alloc: Explicitly record high-order atomic allocations in alloc

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: <20230104114502.j4hzzjohxk7bdkcj@techsingularity.net>
Date:   Wed, 4 Jan 2023 11:45:02 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm/page_alloc: Explicitly record high-order atomic
 allocations in alloc_flags

First off, sorry for the long delay getting back to you. I was sick for
a few weeks and still catching up. I'm still not 100%.

On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 05:51:11PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/29/22 16:16, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index da746e9eb2cf..e2b65767dda0 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -3710,7 +3710,7 @@ struct page *rmqueue_buddy(struct zone *preferred_zone, struct zone *zone,
> >  		 * reserved for high-order atomic allocation, so order-0
> >  		 * request should skip it.
> >  		 */
> > -		if (order > 0 && alloc_flags & ALLOC_HARDER)
> > +		if (alloc_flags & ALLOC_HIGHATOMIC)
> >  			page = __rmqueue_smallest(zone, order, MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC);
> >  		if (!page) {
> >  			page = __rmqueue(zone, order, migratetype, alloc_flags);
> > @@ -4028,8 +4028,10 @@ bool __zone_watermark_ok(struct zone *z, unsigned int order, unsigned long mark,
> >  			return true;
> >  		}
> >  #endif
> > -		if (alloc_harder && !free_area_empty(area, MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC))
> > +		if ((alloc_flags & ALLOC_HIGHATOMIC) &&
> > +		    !free_area_empty(area, MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC)) {
> >  			return true;
> 
> alloc_harder is defined as
> 	(alloc_flags & (ALLOC_HARDER|ALLOC_OOM));
> AFAICS this means we no longer allow ALLOC_OOM to use the highatomic
> reserve. Isn't that a risk?
> 

Yes, it is. I intend to apply the patch below on top. I didn't alter the
first check for ALLOC_HIGHATOMIC as I wanted OOM handling to only use the
high-order reserves if there was no other option. While this is a change
in behaviour, it should be a harmless one. I'll add a note in the changelog.

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 50fc1e7cb154..0ef4f3236a5a 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3710,6 +3710,16 @@ struct page *rmqueue_buddy(struct zone *preferred_zone, struct zone *zone,
 			page = __rmqueue_smallest(zone, order, MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC);
 		if (!page) {
 			page = __rmqueue(zone, order, migratetype, alloc_flags);
+
+			/*
+			 * If the allocation fails, allow OOM handling access
+			 * to HIGHATOMIC reserves as failing now is worse than
+			 * failing a high-order atomic allocation in the
+			 * future.
+			 */
+			if (!page && (alloc_flags & ALLOC_OOM))
+				page = __rmqueue_smallest(zone, order, MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC);
+
 			if (!page) {
 				spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
 				return NULL;
@@ -4023,7 +4033,7 @@ bool __zone_watermark_ok(struct zone *z, unsigned int order, unsigned long mark,
 			return true;
 		}
 #endif
-		if ((alloc_flags & ALLOC_HIGHATOMIC) &&
+		if ((alloc_flags & (ALLOC_HIGHATOMIC|ALLOC_OOM)) &&
 		    !free_area_empty(area, MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC)) {
 			return true;
 		}
-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs