From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09B1C3ABC0 for ; Wed, 7 May 2025 11:31:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 70B0F6B0083; Wed, 7 May 2025 07:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6BABB6B0088; Wed, 7 May 2025 07:31:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5A99C6B0089; Wed, 7 May 2025 07:31:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0017.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.17]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2C56B0083 for ; Wed, 7 May 2025 07:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56F11A1C45 for ; Wed, 7 May 2025 11:31:29 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 83415896298.25.A438BE6 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.16]) by imf14.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1009100008 for ; Wed, 7 May 2025 11:31:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf14.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=aSjMwxV0; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=none (imf14.hostedemail.com: domain of kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.198.163.16) smtp.mailfrom=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1746617487; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=FTH4NhS5vWlJm223R+LkgO/Frryi6S7MGezFW2o9B1H4pCJ52auxske500o9IERjyvWQZ9 KbAnxyzLE0k67SbXm68Bga7f9kIMoshukTF7NnveQNFMiabrYV4n1K//MWquhth4f5lTVi e6qesvCvsiuQjzYeDXsCA8GUQDzWcy4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf14.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=aSjMwxV0; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=none (imf14.hostedemail.com: domain of kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.198.163.16) smtp.mailfrom=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1746617487; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=733W2Kif2X1JVKV89DjMisy+Xwo21i8rMP+YW3Q34eQ=; b=FXcYv4JxmQ90LNkMM3/qFM4kCShZg8KVxvi9WlKQwbbL4KNQjieSvFJiu7oNizFYPftwzm KFImeRloJqiRBn96ADSJH/R8wjF7lfBcXD0OKgU2DzBz7E3I/8Ly5EYZDhbDGSqSwx0img SuJRh8Y4Nhy/VsSmJUOAO2NaIfe8U84= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1746617487; x=1778153487; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=pEwgZPRHQzwFzvyDIQXsfWgDoSet2K+lRqvl3iPcKfk=; b=aSjMwxV0rd8AzjkcNlh05aO54kStnOOi/2khkXP0pwknWz+A8AbE/5fM c5mIKtgIFNaTmnFuQk8MWv4MCSwoFmnkmdzytEFG7xh+9Nhm2f0/djNuN wMAaewnkygfZQdTOqMekCTBEww7DdF8eTB6e+6D5KyUsBFmhB07mY4S0X 0pXNPsU982b/XuCcmMAcZSuieI0G4GHQ4HqpDP8/bgire2hmhcGO4dxeo D31Qcsm/3CYHjTVEOmrnsPQDbdPkdgA27T4cSzfHAUQIQ+OQU6soxaw/E UpbUvTlmbnUrp0+bQbifvfx6NeJxAp/TuHD/s9Fd4sGpUK/Oy9MBkFyCe Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 4jzl9J9UR0eBelbJ7R2zAA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: rTU96u90R8ebqEhsJdYgjQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11425"; a="35973090" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,269,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="35973090" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by fmvoesa110.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 May 2025 04:31:25 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: xsKlk5JLSEe3fBwSNq1BSA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: Yv86otj+TK+6vB0Yraph5w== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,269,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="140675466" Received: from black.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.28]) by orviesa003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 May 2025 04:31:21 -0700 Received: by black.fi.intel.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 619061BC; Wed, 07 May 2025 14:31:19 +0300 (EEST) Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 14:31:19 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Andrew Morton Cc: vbabka@suse.cz, surenb@google.com, mhocko@suse.com, jackmanb@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, bp@alien8.de, tglx@linutronix.de, david@redhat.com, ast@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/page_alloc: Ensure try_alloc_pages() plays well with unaccepted memory Message-ID: References: <20250506112509.905147-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20250506112509.905147-2-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20250506170034.2c6cb08808e60772c207233f@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250506170034.2c6cb08808e60772c207233f@linux-foundation.org> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: F1009100008 X-Stat-Signature: cjrm7mtwpwa5y3hxeqxwpm1dtwkkeuxj X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 X-HE-Tag: 1746617486-864847 X-HE-Meta: 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 M/exfx70 esk9nTGQ4X/Gp1qMkNyoxQGkvrP9j4lKtYXksZap+KJXdFPVgQ2z75nNmn6mXHDWfPT4fZFCIap5L89E4wWFJSdT+K5kmW/BAkTqsLVgiWcSMK6SHRAXWITOq2bQa1QE6oDarIm1vP+FlrHQpEnYzB+8fkvoG8RfTqU/fdI0z+tMah9IT1U/t/KVr5KIp2SMQLhAS1uNzXn+UEvxyPVYsTelH+omstq4wmymp6UwflvtwDTerzyIo92kbkf5A6gHbQi/9 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 05:00:34PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 6 May 2025 14:25:08 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" wrote: > > > try_alloc_pages() will not attempt to allocate memory if the system has > > *any* unaccepted memory. Memory is accepted as needed and can remain in > > the system indefinitely, causing the interface to always fail. > > > > Rather than immediately giving up, attempt to use already accepted > > memory on free lists. > > > > Pass 'alloc_flags' to cond_accept_memory() and do not accept new memory > > for ALLOC_TRYLOCK requests. > > What are the userspace-visible effects, please? I cannot say I fully understand the implications. The interface obviously allows failure, but the caller might expect eventual success on retry. So far, only BPF uses the interface. Maybe Alexei can comment on what will happen if the function always fails. I noticed the issue by code analysis because the second patch removes has_unaccepted_memory(). > Was the omission of cc:stable intentional? I cannot locally determine > this without the above info. > > If the cc:stable omission was indeed intentional then it would be better > if this series was presented as two standalone patches. Given that the second patch cannot be applied to current Linus' tree without this one, it is better to add stable@. -- Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov