netdev - Re: [RFC V3] net: don't wait for order-3 page allocation

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]

Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:22:40 +0200
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
CC:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	kernel-team <Kernel-team@...com>, clm@...com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	dbavatar@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC V3] net: don't wait for order-3 page allocation

On 06/18/2015 04:43 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 18-06-15 07:35:53, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
>>
>>> Abusing __GFP_NO_KSWAPD is a wrong way to go IMHO. It is true that the
>>> _current_ implementation of the allocator has this nasty and very subtle
>>> side effect but that doesn't mean it should be abused outside of the mm
>>> proper. Why shouldn't this path wake the kswapd and let it compact
>>> memory on the background to increase the success rate for the later
>>> high order allocations?
>>
>> I kind of agree.
>>
>> If kswapd is a problem (is it ???) we should fix it, instead of adding
>> yet another flag to some random locations attempting
>> memory allocations.
>
> No, kswapd is not a problem. The problem is ~__GFP_WAIT allocation can
> access some portion of the memory reserves (see gfp_to_alloc_flags resp.
> __zone_watermark_ok and ALLOC_HARDER). __GFP_NO_KSWAPD is just a dirty
> hack to not give that access which was introduced for THP AFAIR.
>
> The implicit access to memory reserves for non sleeping allocation has
> been there for ages and it might be not suitable for this particular
> path but that doesn't mean another gfp flag with a different side effect
> should be hijacked. We should either stop doing that implicit access to
> memory reserves and give __GFP_RESERVE or add the __GFP_NORESERVE. But
> that is a problem to be solved in the mm proper. Spreading subtle
> dependencies outside of mm will just make situation worse.

So you are not proposing to use these __GFP_RESERVE/NORESERVE flag 
outside of mm, right? (besides, we distinguish several kinds of 
reserves, so what exactly would the flag do?) As that would be also 
subtle dependency. The general problem I think is that we should want 
the mm users to specify higher-level intentions (such as GFP_KERNEL) 
which would map to specific directions (__GFP_*) for the allocator, and 
currently it's rather a mess of both kinds of flags. Clearly the 
intention here is "opportunistic allocation that should not 
reclaim/compact, use reserves, wake up kswapd (?) because it's better to 
fall back to smaller pages than wait") and we don't seem to have a 
GFP_OPPORTUNISTIC flag for that. The allocation has to then mask out 
__GFP_WAIT which however looks like an atomic allocation to the 
allocator and give access to reserves, etc...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html