Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to memory reserves

From	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to memory reserves
Date	2015-11-30 23:20 +0100
Message-ID	<qAEXF-11R-33@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <qyFO9-56R-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qyFXP-5aJ-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qyGhb-5xi-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qyPku-2Rv-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qz1bY-3hr-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:

> > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > index 8034909faad2..94b04c1e894a 100644
> > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > @@ -2766,8 +2766,13 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> > >  			goto out;
> > >  	}
> > >  	/* Exhausted what can be done so it's blamo time */
> > > -	if (out_of_memory(&oc) || WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> > > +	if (out_of_memory(&oc) || WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) {
> > >  		*did_some_progress = 1;
> > > +
> > > +		if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)
> > > +			page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, order,
> > > +					ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS, ac);
> > > +	}
> > >  out:
> > >  	mutex_unlock(&oom_lock);
> > >  	return page;
> > 
> > Well, sure, that's one way to do it, but for cpuset users, wouldn't this 
> > lead to a depletion of the first system zone since you've dropped 
> > ALLOC_CPUSET and are doing ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS in the same call?  
> 
> Are you suggesting to do?
> 		if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) {
> 			page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, order,
> 					ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS|ALLOC_CPUSET, ac);
> 			/*
> 			 * fallback to ignore cpuset if our nodes are
> 			 * depleted
> 			 */
> 			if (!page)
> 				get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, order,
> 					ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS, ac);
> 		}
> 
> I am not really sure this worth complication.

I'm objecting to the ability of a process that is doing a __GFP_NOFAIL 
allocation, which has been disallowed access from allocating on certain 
mems through cpusets, to cause an oom condition on those disallowed nodes, 
yes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Thread

[PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to memory reserves Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-11-25 11:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to  memory reserves David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-11-25 12:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to  memory reserves Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-11-25 12:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to  memory reserves David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-11-25 22:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to  memory reserves Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-11-26 10:40 +0100
          Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to  memory reserves David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-11-30 23:20 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to  memory reserves Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-12-02 16:10 +0100
  [PATCH v2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to memory reserves Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-12-02 16:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to  memory reserves David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-12-03 01:10 +0100

csiph-web