On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 12:45:33PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 05:00:37PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > A user with a 75 TB filesystem reported the following journal replay > > error: > > https://github.com/koverstreet/bcachefs/issues/769 > > > > In journal replay we have to sort and dedup all the keys from the > > journal, which means we need a large contiguous allocation. Given that > > the user has 128GB of ram, the 2GB limit on allocation size has become > > far too small. > > > > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > mm/util.c | 6 ------ > > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c > > index 4f1275023eb7..c60df7723096 100644 > > --- a/mm/util.c > > +++ b/mm/util.c > > @@ -665,12 +665,6 @@ void *__kvmalloc_node_noprof(DECL_BUCKET_PARAMS(size, b), gfp_t flags, int node) > > if (!gfpflags_allow_blocking(flags)) > > return NULL; > > > > - /* Don't even allow crazy sizes */ > > - if (unlikely(size > INT_MAX)) { > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(!(flags & __GFP_NOWARN)); > > - return NULL; > > - } > > - > > Err, and not replace it with _any_ limit? That seems very unwise. large allocations will go to either the page allocator or vmalloc, and they have their own limits. although I should have a look at that, and make sure we're not triggering the > MAX_ORDER warning in the page allocator unnecessarily w hen we could just call vmalloc().
