On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > this has been previously posted as a single patch [1] but later on more
> > > > built on top. It turned out that there are users who would like to have
> > > > __GFP_REPEAT semantic. This is currently implemented for costly >64B
> > > > requests. Doing the same for smaller requests would require to redefine
> > > > __GFP_REPEAT semantic in the page allocator which is out of scope of
> > > > this series.
> > > >
> > > > There are many open coded kmalloc with vmalloc fallback instances in
> > > > the tree. Most of them are not careful enough or simply do not care
> > > > about the underlying semantic of the kmalloc/page allocator which means
> > > > that a) some vmalloc fallbacks are basically unreachable because the
> > > > kmalloc part will keep retrying until it succeeds b) the page allocator
> > > > can invoke a really disruptive steps like the OOM killer to move forward
> > > > which doesn't sound appropriate when we consider that the vmalloc
> > > > fallback is available.
> > > >
> > > > As it can be seen implementing kvmalloc requires quite an intimate
> > > > knowledge if the page allocator and the memory reclaim internals which
> > > > strongly suggests that a helper should be implemented in the memory
> > > > subsystem proper.
> > > >
> > > > Most callers I could find have been converted to use the helper instead.
> > > > This is patch 5. There are some more relying on __GFP_REPEAT in the
> > > > networking stack which I have converted as well but considering we do
> > > > not have a support for __GFP_REPEAT for requests smaller than 64kB I
> > > > have marked it RFC.
> > >
> > > Are there any more comments? I would really appreciate to hear from
> > > networking folks before I resubmit the series.
> >
> > while this patchset was baking the bpf side switched to use bpf_map_area_alloc()
> > which fixes the issue with missing __GFP_NORETRY that we had to fix quickly.
> > See commit d407bd25a204 ("bpf: don't trigger OOM killer under pressure with map alloc")
> > it covers all kmalloc/vmalloc pairs instead of just one place as in this set.
> > So please rebase and switch bpf_map_area_alloc() to use kvmalloc().
>
> OK, will do. Thanks for the heads up.
Just for the record, I will fold the following into the patch 1
---
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index 19b6129eab23..8697f43cf93c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -53,21 +53,7 @@ void bpf_register_map_type(struct bpf_map_type_list *tl)
void *bpf_map_area_alloc(size_t size)
{
- /* We definitely need __GFP_NORETRY, so OOM killer doesn't
- * trigger under memory pressure as we really just want to
- * fail instead.
- */
- const gfp_t flags = __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_ZERO;
- void *area;
-
- if (size <= (PAGE_SIZE << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)) {
- area = kmalloc(size, GFP_USER | flags);
- if (area != NULL)
- return area;
- }
-
- return __vmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_HIGHMEM | flags,
- PAGE_KERNEL);
+ return kvzalloc(size, GFP_USER);
}
void bpf_map_area_free(void *area)
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
