Re: [PATCH v16 1/5] mm: add VM_DROPPABLE for designating always lazily freeable mappings

["Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 02:00:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 07-06-24 17:50:34, Jann Horn wrote:
> [...]
> > Or, from a different angle: You're trying to allocate memory, and you
> > can't make forward progress until that memory has been allocated
> > (unless the process is killed). That's what GFP_KERNEL is for. Stuff
> > like "__GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY" is for when you have a backup plan
> > that lets you make progress (perhaps in a slightly less efficient way,
> > or by dropping some incoming data, or something like that), and it
> > hints to the page allocator that it doesn't have to try hard to
> > reclaim memory if it can't find free memory quickly.
> 
> Correct. A psedu-busy wait for allocation to succeed sounds like a very
> bad idea to imprint into ABI. Is there really any design requirement to
> make these mappings to never cause the OOM killer?
> 
> Making the content dropable under memory pressure because it is
> inherently recoverable is something else (this is essentially an
> implicit MADV_FREE semantic) but putting a requirement on the memory
> allocation on the fault sounds just wrong to me.

The idea is that syscall getrandom() won't make a process be killed, so
neither should vgetrandom().

But there's an argument to be made that the NOWARN|NORETRY logic only
made sense with the now-dropped "skip instruction on fault" patch that
was so controversial before, since in that case, there wouldn't be
infinite retry, but rather skipping and then falling back to the
syscall. I think this is nicer behavior, but the implementation caused a
stir, so I'm not at the moment going that route. Given that, I think
I'll follow your advice and get rid of NOWARN|NORETRY for this too. And
then maybe we'll all revisit that later.

Jason