On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:34 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/10/25 11:18, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > >> because this will affect the refill even if consume_stock() fails not due to > >> a trylock failure (which should not be happening), but also just because the > >> stock was of a wrong memcg or depleted. So in the nowait context we deny the > >> refill even if we have the memory. Attached patch could be used to see if it > >> if fixes things. I'm not sure about the testcases where it doesn't look like > >> nowait context would be used though, let's see. > > > > Not quite. > > GFP_NOWAIT includes __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM, > > so gfpflags_allow_spinning() will return true. > > Uh right, it's the new gfpflags_allow_spinning(), not the > gfpflags_allow_blocking() I'm used to and implicitly assumed, sorry. > > But then it's very simple because it has a bug: > gfpflags_allow_spinning() does > > return !(gfp_flags & __GFP_RECLAIM); > > should be !! Ouch. So I accidentally exposed the whole linux-next to this stress testing of new trylock facilities :( But the silver lining is that this is the only thing that blew up :) Could you send a patch or I will do it later today.
