From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f69.google.com (mail-wm0-f69.google.com [74.125.82.69])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 728E16B000E
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue,  7 Aug 2018 07:19:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-f69.google.com with SMTP id y13-v6so10206859wma.1
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 07 Aug 2018 04:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc (Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc. [2a01:7a0:2:106d:670::1])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c14-v6si837564wrn.202.2018.08.07.04.19.31
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>
        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256);
        Tue, 07 Aug 2018 04:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 13:19:26 +0200
From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Subject: Re: [Bug 200651] New: cgroups iptables-restor: vmalloc: allocation
 failure
Message-ID: <20180807111926.ibdkzgghn3nfugn2@breakpoint.cc>
References: <6838c342-2d07-3047-e723-2b641bc6bf79@suse.cz>
 <8105b7b3-20d3-5931-9f3c-2858021a4e12@icdsoft.com>
 <20180731140520.kpotpihqsmiwhh7l@breakpoint.cc>
 <e5b24629-0296-5a4d-577a-c25d1c52b03b@suse.cz>
 <20180801083349.GF16767@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <e5c5e965-a6bc-d61f-97fc-78da287b5d94@icdsoft.com>
 <20180802085043.GC10808@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <85c86f17-6f96-6f01-2a3c-e2bad0ccb317@icdsoft.com>
 <5b5e872e-5785-2cfd-7d53-e19e017e5636@icdsoft.com>
 <20180807110951.GZ10003@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180807110951.GZ10003@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Georgi Nikolov <gnikolov@icdsoft.com>, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org

Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > I can't reproduce it anymore.
> > If i understand correctly this way memory allocated will be
> > accounted to kmem of this cgroup (if inside cgroup).
> 
> s@this@caller's@
> 
> Florian, is this patch acceptable

I am no mm expert.  Should all longlived GFP_KERNEL allocations set ACCOUNT?

If so, there are more places that should get same treatment.
The change looks fine to me, but again, I don't know when ACCOUNT should
be set in the first place.