On 3/6/23 15:03, Michal Hocko wrote:
> ---
> From 3ccfaa15bf2587b8998c129533a0404fedf5a484 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 09:15:17 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] mm, vmalloc: fix high order __GFP_NOFAIL allocations
>
> Gao Xiang has reported that the page allocator complains about high
> order __GFP_NOFAIL request coming from the vmalloc core:
>
> __alloc_pages+0x1cb/0x5b0 mm/page_alloc.c:5549
> alloc_pages+0x1aa/0x270 mm/mempolicy.c:2286
> vm_area_alloc_pages mm/vmalloc.c:2989 [inline]
> __vmalloc_area_node mm/vmalloc.c:3057 [inline]
> __vmalloc_node_range+0x978/0x13c0 mm/vmalloc.c:3227
> kvmalloc_node+0x156/0x1a0 mm/util.c:606
> kvmalloc include/linux/slab.h:737 [inline]
> kvmalloc_array include/linux/slab.h:755 [inline]
> kvcalloc include/linux/slab.h:760 [inline]
>
> it seems that I have completely missed high order allocation backing
> vmalloc areas case when implementing __GFP_NOFAIL support. This means
> that [k]vmalloc at al. can allocate higher order allocations with
> __GFP_NOFAIL which can trigger OOM killer for non-costly orders easily
> or cause a lot of reclaim/compaction activity if those requests cannot
> be satisfied.
>
> Fix the issue by falling back to zero order allocations for __GFP_NOFAIL
> requests if the high order request fails.
>
> Fixes: 9376130c390a ("mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL")
> Reported-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/vmalloc.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index ef910bf349e1..bef6cf2b4d46 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -2883,6 +2883,8 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid,
> unsigned int order, unsigned int nr_pages, struct page **pages)
> {
> unsigned int nr_allocated = 0;
> + gfp_t alloc_gfp = gfp;
> + bool nofail = false;
> struct page *page;
> int i;
>
> @@ -2893,6 +2895,7 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid,
> * more permissive.
> */
> if (!order) {
> + /* bulk allocator doesn't support nofail req. officially */
> gfp_t bulk_gfp = gfp & ~__GFP_NOFAIL;
>
> while (nr_allocated < nr_pages) {
> @@ -2931,20 +2934,35 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid,
> if (nr != nr_pages_request)
> break;
> }
> + } else if (gfp & __GFP_NOFAIL) {
> + /*
> + * Higher order nofail allocations are really expensive and
> + * potentially dangerous (pre-mature OOM, disruptive reclaim
> + * and compaction etc.
^ unclosed parenthesis
> + */
> + alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_NOFAIL;
> + nofail = true;
> }
>
> /* High-order pages or fallback path if "bulk" fails. */
> -
> while (nr_allocated < nr_pages) {
> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> break;
>
> if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> - page = alloc_pages(gfp, order);
> + page = alloc_pages(alloc_gfp, order);
> else
> - page = alloc_pages_node(nid, gfp, order);
> - if (unlikely(!page))
> - break;
> + page = alloc_pages_node(nid, alloc_gfp, order);
> + if (unlikely(!page)) {
> + if (!nofail)
> + break;
> +
> + /* fall back to the zero order allocations */
> + alloc_gfp |= __GFP_NOFAIL;
> + order = 0;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> /*
> * Higher order allocations must be able to be treated as
> * indepdenent small pages by callers (as they can with
^ while at it the typo could also be fixed
