linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: only set ALLOC_HIGHATOMIC for __GPF

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: <xzjclrwdgtzeufjpposi4aqj37qe4cf5mla2mv4ss2fu7llrmp@r6yjikyew6ej>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 14:06:17 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, 
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, 
	Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, 
	kernel-dev@...lia.com, Helen Koike <koike@...lia.com>, 
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, 
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...lia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: only set ALLOC_HIGHATOMIC for __GPF_HIGH
 allocations

On (25/08/14 14:22), Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> Commit 524c48072e56 ("mm/page_alloc: rename ALLOC_HIGH to
> ALLOC_MIN_RESERVE") is the start of a series that explains how __GFP_HIGH,
> which implies ALLOC_MIN_RESERVE, is going to be used instead of
> __GFP_ATOMIC for high atomic reserves.
> 
> Commit eb2e2b425c69 ("mm/page_alloc: explicitly record high-order atomic
> allocations in alloc_flags") introduced ALLOC_HIGHATOMIC for such
> allocations of order higher than 0. It still used __GFP_ATOMIC, though.
> 
> Then, commit 1ebbb21811b7 ("mm/page_alloc: explicitly define how __GFP_HIGH
> non-blocking allocations accesses reserves") just turned that check for
> !__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM, ignoring that high atomic reserves were expected to
> test for __GFP_HIGH.
> 
> This leads to high atomic reserves being added for high-order GFP_NOWAIT
> allocations and others that clear __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM, which is
> unexpected. Later, those reserves lead to 0-order allocations going to the
> slow path and starting reclaim.
> 
> From /proc/pagetypeinfo, without the patch:
> 
> Node    0, zone      DMA, type   HighAtomic      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0
> Node    0, zone    DMA32, type   HighAtomic      1      8     10      9      7      3      0      0      0      0      0
> Node    0, zone   Normal, type   HighAtomic     64     20     12      5      0      0      0      0      0      0      0
> 
> With the patch:
> 
> Node    0, zone      DMA, type   HighAtomic      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0
> Node    0, zone    DMA32, type   HighAtomic      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0
> Node    0, zone   Normal, type   HighAtomic      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0

[..]

> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 2ef3c07266b3..bf52e3bef626 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -4219,7 +4219,7 @@ gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
>  		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC)) {
>  			alloc_flags |= ALLOC_NON_BLOCK;
>  
> -			if (order > 0)
> +			if (order > 0 && (alloc_flags & ALLOC_MIN_RESERVE))
>  				alloc_flags |= ALLOC_HIGHATOMIC;
>  		}

>From my limited understanding, it does look like this was the
intention.  Vlastimil, Mel, got a minute to take a look?