Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, tree wide: replace __GFP_REPEAT by __GFP_RETRY_HARD with more useful semantic

[Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>]

Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-06-16 21:11:03, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Remaining __GFP_REPEAT users are not always doing costly allocations.
> 
> Yes but...
> 
> > Sometimes they pass __GFP_REPEAT because the size is given from userspace.
> > Thus, unconditional s/__GFP_REPEAT/__GFP_RETRY_HARD/g is not good.
> 
> Would that be a regression though? Strictly speaking the __GFP_REPEAT
> documentation was explicit to not loop for ever. So nobody should have
> expected nofail semantic pretty much by definition. The fact that our
> previous implementation was not fully conforming to the documentation is
> just an implementation detail.  All the remaining users of __GFP_REPEAT
> _have_ to be prepared for the allocation failure. So what exactly is the
> problem with them?

A !costly allocation becomes weaker than now if __GFP_RETRY_HARD is passed.

> > >  	/* Reclaim has failed us, start killing things */
> > >  	page = __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_mask, order, ac, &did_some_progress);
> > >  	if (page)
> > > @@ -3719,6 +3731,7 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> > >  	/* Retry as long as the OOM killer is making progress */
> > >  	if (did_some_progress) {
> > >  		no_progress_loops = 0;
> > > +		passed_oom = true;
> > 
> > This is too premature. did_some_progress != 0 after returning from
> > __alloc_pages_may_oom() does not mean the OOM killer was invoked. It only means
> > that mutex_trylock(&oom_lock) was attempted.
> 
> which means that we have reached the OOM condition and _somebody_ is
> actaully handling the OOM on our behalf.

That _somebody_ might release oom_lock without invoking the OOM killer (e.g.
doing !__GFP_FS allocation), which means that we have reached the OOM condition
and nobody is actually handling the OOM on our behalf. __GFP_RETRY_HARD becomes
as weak as __GFP_NORETRY. I think this is a regression.



> > What I think more important is hearing from __GFP_REPEAT users how hard they
> > want to retry. It is possible that they want to retry unless SIGKILL is
> > delivered, but passing __GFP_NOFAIL is too hard, and therefore __GFP_REPEAT
> > is used instead. It is possible that they use __GFP_NOFAIL || __GFP_KILLABLE
> > if __GFP_KILLABLE were available. In my module (though I'm not using
> > __GFP_REPEAT), I want to retry unless SIGKILL is delivered.
> 
> To be honest killability for a particular allocation request sounds
> like a hack to me. Just consider the expected semantic. How do you
> handle when one path uses explicit __GFP_KILLABLE while other path (from
> the same syscall) is not... If anything this would have to be process
> context wise.

I didn't catch your question. But making code killable should be considered
good unless it complicates error handling paths.

Since we are not setting TIF_MEMDIE to all OOM-killed threads, OOM-killed
threads will have to loop until mutex_trylock(&oom_lock) succeeds in order
to get TIF_MEMDIE by calling out_of_memory(), which is a needless delay.

Many allocations from syscall context can give up upon SIGKILL. We don't
need to allow OOM-killed threads to use memory reserves if that allocation
is killable.

Converting down_write(&mm->mmap_sem) to down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem)
is considered good. But converting kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) to
kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_KILLABLE) is considered hack. Why?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>