On Fri 12-05-17 11:18:42, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Folks,
>
> recently I have seen page allocation failures during
> paging in the paging code:
> e.g.
>
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: Call Trace:
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: ([<0000000000112f62>] show_trace+0x62/0x78)
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<0000000000113050>] show_stack+0x68/0xe0
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<00000000004fb97e>] dump_stack+0x7e/0xb0
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<0000000000299262>] warn_alloc+0xf2/0x190
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<000000000029a25a>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0xeda/0xfe0
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<00000000002fa570>] alloc_pages_current+0xb8/0x170
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<00000000002f03fc>] add_swap_count_continuation+0x3c/0x280
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<00000000002f068c>] swap_duplicate+0x4c/0x80
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<00000000002dfbfa>] try_to_unmap_one+0x372/0x578
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<000000000030131a>] rmap_walk_ksm+0x14a/0x1d8
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<00000000002e0d60>] try_to_unmap+0x140/0x170
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<00000000002abc9c>] shrink_page_list+0x944/0xad8
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<00000000002ac720>] shrink_inactive_list+0x1e0/0x5b8
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<00000000002ad642>] shrink_node_memcg+0x5e2/0x800
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<00000000002ad954>] shrink_node+0xf4/0x360
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<00000000002aeb00>] kswapd+0x330/0x810
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<0000000000189f14>] kthread+0x144/0x168
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<00000000008011ea>] kernel_thread_starter+0x6/0xc
> May 05 21:36:53 kernel: [<00000000008011e4>] kernel_thread_starter+0x0/0xc
>
> This seems to be new in 4.11 but the relevant code did not seem to have
> changed.
>
> Something like this
>
> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> index 1781308..b2dd53e 100644
> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> @@ -3039,7 +3039,7 @@ int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry)
> int err = 0;
>
> while (!err && __swap_duplicate(entry, 1) == -ENOMEM)
> - err = add_swap_count_continuation(entry, GFP_ATOMIC);
> + err = add_swap_count_continuation(entry, GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN);
> return err;
> }
>
>
> seems not appropriate, because this code does not know if the caller can
> handle returned errors.
>
> Would something like the following (white space damaged cut'n'paste be ok?
> (the try_to_unmap_one change looks fine, not sure if copy_one_pte does the
> right thing)
No, it won't. If you want to silent the warning then explain _why_ it is
a good approach. It is not immediatelly clear to me.
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 235ba51..3ae6f33 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -898,7 +898,7 @@ copy_one_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
> swp_entry_t entry = pte_to_swp_entry(pte);
>
> if (likely(!non_swap_entry(entry))) {
> - if (swap_duplicate(entry) < 0)
> + if (swap_duplicate(entry, __GFP_NOWARN) < 0)
> return entry.val;
Moreover if you add a gfp_mask argument then the _full_ mask should be
given rather than just one of the modifiers.
--
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>
