On 1/15/25 03:17, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Use try_alloc_pages() and free_pages_nolock()
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index 0daf098e3207..8bcf48e31a5a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -582,14 +582,14 @@ int bpf_map_alloc_pages(const struct bpf_map *map, gfp_t gfp, int nid,
This makes the gfp parameter unused? And the callers are passing GFP_KERNEL
anyway? Isn't try_alloc_pages() rather useful for some context that did not
even try to allocate until now, but now it could?
Also unless my concerns about page_owner were wrong, this is where they
could manifest.
> old_memcg = set_active_memcg(memcg);
> #endif
> for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
> - pg = alloc_pages_node(nid, gfp | __GFP_ACCOUNT, 0);
> + pg = try_alloc_pages(nid, 0);
>
> if (pg) {
> pages[i] = pg;
> continue;
> }
> for (j = 0; j < i; j++)
> - __free_page(pages[j]);
> + free_pages_nolock(pages[j], 0);
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> break;
> }
