From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Don't fail costly __GFP_NOFAIL allocations.
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 13:54:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161121125431.GA18112@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201611212016.GGG52176.LSOVtOHJFMQFFO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On Mon 21-11-16 20:16:40, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 17-11-16 21:50:04, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > Filesystem code might request costly __GFP_NOFAIL !__GFP_REPEAT GFP_NOFS
> > > allocations. But commit 0a0337e0d1d13446 ("mm, oom: rework oom detection")
> > > overlooked that __GFP_NOFAIL allocation requests need to invoke the OOM
> > > killer and retry even if order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER && !__GFP_REPEAT.
> > > The caller will crash if such allocation request failed.
> >
> > Could you point to such an allocation request please? Costly GFP_NOFAIL
> > requests are a really high requirement and I am even not sure we should
> > support them. buffered_rmqueue already warns about order > 1 NOFAIL
> > allocations.
>
> That question is pointless. You are simply lucky that you see only order 0 or
> order 1. There are many __GFP_NOFAIL allocations where order is determined at
> runtime. There is no guarantee that order 2 and above never happens.
You are pushing to the extreme again! Your changelog stated this might
be an existing and the real life problem and that is the reason I've
asked. Especially because you have marked the patch for stable. As I've
said in my previous response. Your patch looks correct, I am just not
entirely happy to clutter the code path even more for GFP_NOFAIL for
something we maybe even do not support. All the checks we have there are
head spinning already.
So we have two options, either we have real users of GFP_NOFAIL for
costly orders and handle that properly with all that information in the
changelog or simply rely on the warning and fix callers who do that
accidentally. But please stop this, theoretically something might do
$THIS_RANDOM_GFP_FLAGS + order combination and we absolutely must handle
that in the allocator.
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-21 12:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-17 12:50 Tetsuo Handa
2016-11-21 6:03 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-21 11:16 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-11-21 12:54 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-11-22 6:29 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-22 6:44 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161121125431.GA18112@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox