All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, azurIt <azurit@pobox.sk>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Christian Casteyde <casteyde.christian@free.fr>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 18:07:17 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131203180717.94c013d1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131204015218.GA19709@lge.com>

On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:52:18 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> wrote:

> SLUB already try to allocate high order page with clearing __GFP_NOFAIL.
> But, when allocating shadow page for kmemcheck, it missed clearing
> the flag. This trigger WARN_ON_ONCE() reported by Christian Casteyde.
> 
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65991
> 
> This patch fix this situation by using same allocation flag as original
> allocation.
> 
> Reported-by: Christian Casteyde <casteyde.christian@free.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 545a170..3dd28b1 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1335,11 +1335,12 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
>  	page = alloc_slab_page(alloc_gfp, node, oo);
>  	if (unlikely(!page)) {
>  		oo = s->min;

What is the value of s->min?  Please tell me it's zero.

> +		alloc_gfp = flags;
>  		/*
>  		 * Allocation may have failed due to fragmentation.
>  		 * Try a lower order alloc if possible
>  		 */
> -		page = alloc_slab_page(flags, node, oo);
> +		page = alloc_slab_page(alloc_gfp, node, oo);
>  
>  		if (page)
>  			stat(s, ORDER_FALLBACK);

This change doesn't actually do anything.

> @@ -1349,7 +1350,7 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
>  		&& !(s->flags & (SLAB_NOTRACK | DEBUG_DEFAULT_FLAGS))) {
>  		int pages = 1 << oo_order(oo);
>  
> -		kmemcheck_alloc_shadow(page, oo_order(oo), flags, node);
> +		kmemcheck_alloc_shadow(page, oo_order(oo), alloc_gfp, node);

That seems reasonable, assuming kmemcheck can handle the allocation
failure.


Still I dislike this practice of using unnecessarily large allocations.
What does it gain us?  Slightly improved object packing density. 
Anything else?


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, azurIt <azurit@pobox.sk>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Christian Casteyde <casteyde.christian@free.fr>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 18:07:17 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131203180717.94c013d1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131204015218.GA19709@lge.com>

On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:52:18 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> wrote:

> SLUB already try to allocate high order page with clearing __GFP_NOFAIL.
> But, when allocating shadow page for kmemcheck, it missed clearing
> the flag. This trigger WARN_ON_ONCE() reported by Christian Casteyde.
> 
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65991
> 
> This patch fix this situation by using same allocation flag as original
> allocation.
> 
> Reported-by: Christian Casteyde <casteyde.christian@free.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 545a170..3dd28b1 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1335,11 +1335,12 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
>  	page = alloc_slab_page(alloc_gfp, node, oo);
>  	if (unlikely(!page)) {
>  		oo = s->min;

What is the value of s->min?  Please tell me it's zero.

> +		alloc_gfp = flags;
>  		/*
>  		 * Allocation may have failed due to fragmentation.
>  		 * Try a lower order alloc if possible
>  		 */
> -		page = alloc_slab_page(flags, node, oo);
> +		page = alloc_slab_page(alloc_gfp, node, oo);
>  
>  		if (page)
>  			stat(s, ORDER_FALLBACK);

This change doesn't actually do anything.

> @@ -1349,7 +1350,7 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
>  		&& !(s->flags & (SLAB_NOTRACK | DEBUG_DEFAULT_FLAGS))) {
>  		int pages = 1 << oo_order(oo);
>  
> -		kmemcheck_alloc_shadow(page, oo_order(oo), flags, node);
> +		kmemcheck_alloc_shadow(page, oo_order(oo), alloc_gfp, node);

That seems reasonable, assuming kmemcheck can handle the allocation
failure.


Still I dislike this practice of using unnecessarily large allocations.
What does it gain us?  Slightly improved object packing density. 
Anything else?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim-Hm3cg6mZ9cc@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>,
	azurIt <azurit-Rm0zKEqwvD4@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org,
	cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	Christian Casteyde
	<casteyde.christian-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl-vYTEC60ixJUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 18:07:17 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131203180717.94c013d1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131204015218.GA19709-Hm3cg6mZ9cc@public.gmane.org>

On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:52:18 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim-Hm3cg6mZ9cc@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> SLUB already try to allocate high order page with clearing __GFP_NOFAIL.
> But, when allocating shadow page for kmemcheck, it missed clearing
> the flag. This trigger WARN_ON_ONCE() reported by Christian Casteyde.
> 
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65991
> 
> This patch fix this situation by using same allocation flag as original
> allocation.
> 
> Reported-by: Christian Casteyde <casteyde.christian-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim-Hm3cg6mZ9cc@public.gmane.org>
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 545a170..3dd28b1 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1335,11 +1335,12 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
>  	page = alloc_slab_page(alloc_gfp, node, oo);
>  	if (unlikely(!page)) {
>  		oo = s->min;

What is the value of s->min?  Please tell me it's zero.

> +		alloc_gfp = flags;
>  		/*
>  		 * Allocation may have failed due to fragmentation.
>  		 * Try a lower order alloc if possible
>  		 */
> -		page = alloc_slab_page(flags, node, oo);
> +		page = alloc_slab_page(alloc_gfp, node, oo);
>  
>  		if (page)
>  			stat(s, ORDER_FALLBACK);

This change doesn't actually do anything.

> @@ -1349,7 +1350,7 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
>  		&& !(s->flags & (SLAB_NOTRACK | DEBUG_DEFAULT_FLAGS))) {
>  		int pages = 1 << oo_order(oo);
>  
> -		kmemcheck_alloc_shadow(page, oo_order(oo), flags, node);
> +		kmemcheck_alloc_shadow(page, oo_order(oo), alloc_gfp, node);

That seems reasonable, assuming kmemcheck can handle the allocation
failure.


Still I dislike this practice of using unnecessarily large allocations.
What does it gain us?  Slightly improved object packing density. 
Anything else?

  reply	other threads:[~2013-12-04  2:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-08 20:58 [patch 1/2] mm: memcg: handle non-error OOM situations more gracefully Johannes Weiner
2013-10-08 20:58 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-10-08 20:58 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-10-08 20:58 ` [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator Johannes Weiner
2013-10-08 20:58   ` Johannes Weiner
2013-10-08 20:58   ` Johannes Weiner
2013-10-11 20:51   ` Andrew Morton
2013-10-11 20:51     ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04  0:59   ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04  0:59     ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04  1:52     ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04  1:52       ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04  1:52       ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04  2:07       ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2013-12-04  2:07         ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04  2:07         ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04  2:42         ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04  2:42           ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04 15:17         ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-04 15:17           ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-04 15:17           ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-04 16:02           ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04 16:02             ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04 16:33             ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-04 16:33               ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-05  8:44               ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-05  8:44                 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-05 18:50                 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-05 18:50                   ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-06  8:57                   ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-06  8:57                     ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-13  6:58       ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-13  6:58         ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-13  6:58         ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-13 16:40         ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-13 16:40           ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-16  8:22           ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-16  8:22             ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-16  8:22             ` Joonsoo Kim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20131203180717.94c013d1.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=azurit@pobox.sk \
    --cc=casteyde.christian@free.fr \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.