On Tue, 21 May 2019, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> > When failslab was originally written, the intention of the
> > "ignore-gfp-wait" flag default value ("N") was to fail
> > GFP_ATOMIC allocations. Those were defined as (__GFP_HIGH),
> > and the code would test for __GFP_WAIT (0x10u).
> >
> > However, since then, __GFP_WAIT was replaced by __GFP_RECLAIM
> > (___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM|___GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM), and GFP_ATOMIC is
> > now defined as (__GFP_HIGH|__GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM).
> >
> > This means that when the flag is false, almost no allocation
> > ever fails (as even GFP_ATOMIC allocations contain
> > __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM).
> >
> > Restore the original intent of the code, by ignoring calls
> > that directly reclaim only (___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM), and thus,
> > failing GFP_ATOMIC calls again by default.
> >
> > Fixes: 71baba4b92dc1fa1 ("mm, page_alloc: rename __GFP_WAIT to __GFP_RECLAIM")
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Good catch.
>
> Reviewed-by: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > ---
> > mm/failslab.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/failslab.c b/mm/failslab.c
> > index ec5aad211c5be97..33efcb60e633c0a 100644
> > --- a/mm/failslab.c
> > +++ b/mm/failslab.c
> > @@ -23,7 +23,8 @@ bool __should_failslab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags)
> > if (gfpflags & __GFP_NOFAIL)
> > return false;
> >
> > - if (failslab.ignore_gfp_reclaim && (gfpflags & __GFP_RECLAIM))
> > + if (failslab.ignore_gfp_reclaim &&
> > + (gfpflags & ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM))
> > return false;
>
> Should we use __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM instead of ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM?
> Because I found the following comment in gfp.h
>
> /* Plain integer GFP bitmasks. Do not use this directly. */
>
Yes, we should use the two underscore version instead of the three.
Nicolas, after that's fixed up, feel free to add Acked-by: David Rientjes
<rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>.
Thanks!
