linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv5] mm: skip CMA pages when they are not available

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20230609153519.ff01046ef0faff00a74bd5b0@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 9 Jun 2023 15:35:19 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>, <ke.wang@...soc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5] mm: skip CMA pages when they are not available

On Wed, 31 May 2023 10:51:01 +0800 "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com> wrote:

> From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
> 
> This patch fixes unproductive reclaiming of CMA pages by skipping them when they
> are not available for current context. It is arise from bellowing OOM issue, which
> caused by large proportion of MIGRATE_CMA pages among free pages.
> 
> [   36.172486] [03-19 10:05:52.172] ActivityManager: page allocation failure: order:0, mode:0xc00(GFP_NOIO), nodemask=(null),cpuset=foreground,mems_allowed=0
> [   36.189447] [03-19 10:05:52.189] DMA32: 0*4kB 447*8kB (C) 217*16kB (C) 124*32kB (C) 136*64kB (C) 70*128kB (C) 22*256kB (C) 3*512kB (C) 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 35848kB
> [   36.193125] [03-19 10:05:52.193] Normal: 231*4kB (UMEH) 49*8kB (MEH) 14*16kB (H) 13*32kB (H) 8*64kB (H) 2*128kB (H) 0*256kB 1*512kB (H) 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 3236kB
> ...
> [   36.234447] [03-19 10:05:52.234] SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on node -1, gfp=0xa20(GFP_ATOMIC)
> [   36.234455] [03-19 10:05:52.234] cache: ext4_io_end, object size: 64, buffer size: 64, default order: 0, min order: 0
> [   36.234459] [03-19 10:05:52.234] node 0: slabs: 53,objs: 3392, free: 0
> 

We saw plenty of feedback for earlier versions, but now silence.  Does
this mean we're all OK with v5?