linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Chunyu Hu <chuhu@redhat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: kmemleak: replace __GFP_NOFAIL to GFP_NOWAIT in gfp_kmemleak_mask
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 19:52:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+ZLtpU2WK7zRyXTuMWsE-5_Tz4LYs7xtwZrYZ8zbHVOHg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180420175023.3c4okuayrcul2bom@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com>

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 12:58:33AM +0800, Chunyu Hu wrote:
>> __GFP_NORETRY and  __GFP_NOFAIL are combined in gfp_kmemleak_mask now.
>> But it's a wrong combination. As __GFP_NOFAIL is blockable, but
>> __GFP_NORETY is not blockable, make it self-contradiction.
>>
>> __GFP_NOFAIL means 'The VM implementation _must_ retry infinitely'. But
>> it's not the real intention, as kmemleak allow alloc failure happen in
>> memory pressure, in that case kmemleak just disables itself.
>
> Good point. The __GFP_NOFAIL flag was added by commit d9570ee3bd1d
> ("kmemleak: allow to coexist with fault injection") to keep kmemleak
> usable under fault injection.
>
>> commit 9a67f6488eca ("mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator
>> slowpath") documented that what user wants here should use GFP_NOWAIT, and
>> the WARN in __alloc_pages_slowpath caught this weird usage.
>>
>>  <snip>
>>  WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 64 at mm/page_alloc.c:4261 __alloc_pages_slowpath+0x1cc3/0x2780
> [...]
>> Replace the __GFP_NOFAIL with GFP_NOWAIT in gfp_kmemleak_mask, __GFP_NORETRY
>> and GFP_NOWAIT are in the gfp_kmemleak_mask. So kmemleak object allocaion
>> is no blockable and no reclaim, making kmemleak less disruptive to user
>> processes in pressure.
>
> It doesn't solve the fault injection problem for kmemleak (unless we
> change __should_failslab() somehow, not sure yet). An option would be to
> replace __GFP_NORETRY with __GFP_NOFAIL in kmemleak when fault injection
> is enabled.
>
> BTW, does the combination of NOWAIT and NORETRY make kmemleak
> allocations more likely to fail?
>
> Cc'ing Dmitry as well.

Yes, it would be bad if there allocations fail due to fault injection.
These are both debugging tools and ideally should not interfere.

>> Signed-off-by: Chunyu Hu <chuhu@redhat.com>
>> CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/kmemleak.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
>> index 9a085d5..4ea07e4 100644
>> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
>> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
>> @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@
>>  /* GFP bitmask for kmemleak internal allocations */
>>  #define gfp_kmemleak_mask(gfp)       (((gfp) & (GFP_KERNEL | GFP_ATOMIC)) | \
>>                                __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | \
>> -                              __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NOFAIL)
>> +                              __GFP_NOWARN | GFP_NOWAIT)
>>
>>  /* scanning area inside a memory block */
>>  struct kmemleak_scan_area {
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1

  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-20 17:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-20 16:58 Chunyu Hu
2018-04-20 17:50 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-04-20 17:52   ` Dmitry Vyukov [this message]
2018-04-22 12:51   ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-22 15:00     ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-04-23  4:17       ` Chunyu Hu
2018-04-24 13:20         ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-24 13:41           ` Catalin Marinas
2018-04-25  9:50             ` Chunyu Hu
2018-04-25 12:51               ` Catalin Marinas
2018-04-25 14:33                 ` Chunyu Hu
2018-04-27 10:13                   ` Chunyu Hu
2018-04-24 16:48           ` Chunyu Hu
2018-04-24 17:02             ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-24 17:16               ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-04-26 12:23               ` Chunyu Hu
2018-04-26 12:56                 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-04-27 10:17                   ` Chunyu Hu
2018-04-23  3:30   ` Chunyu Hu

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=CACT4Y+ZLtpU2WK7zRyXTuMWsE-5_Tz4LYs7xtwZrYZ8zbHVOHg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=chuhu@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    /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