From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/6] mm, page_alloc: fix more premature OOM due to race with cpuset update
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:25:32 -0500 (CDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704121617040.28335@east.gentwo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a86ae57a-3efc-6ae5-ddf0-fd64c53c20fa@suse.cz>
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > The fallback was only intended for a cpuset on which boundaries are not enforced
> > in critical conditions (softwall). A hardwall cpuset (CS_MEM_HARDWALL)
> > should fail the allocation.
>
> Hmm just to clarify - I'm talking about ignoring the *mempolicy's* nodemask on
> the basis of cpuset having higher priority, while you seem to be talking about
> ignoring a (softwall) cpuset nodemask, right? man set_mempolicy says "... if
> required nodemask contains no nodes that are allowed by the process's current
> cpuset context, the memory policy reverts to local allocation" which does come
> down to ignoring mempolicy's nodemask.
I am talking of allocating outside of the current allowed nodes
(determined by mempolicy -- MPOL_BIND is the only concern as far as I can
tell -- as well as the current cpuset). One can violate the cpuset if its not
a hardwall but the MPOL_MBIND node restriction cannot be violated.
Those allocations are also not allowed if the allocation was for a user
space page even if this is a softwall cpuset.
> >> This patch fixes the issue by having __alloc_pages_slowpath() check for empty
> >> intersection of cpuset and ac->nodemask before OOM or allocation failure. If
> >> it's indeed empty, the nodemask is ignored and allocation retried, which mimics
> >> node_zonelist(). This works fine, because almost all callers of
> >
> > Well that would need to be subject to the hardwall flag. Allocation needs
> > to fail for a hardwall cpuset.
>
> They still do, if no hardwall cpuset node can satisfy the allocation with
> mempolicy ignored.
If the memory policy is MPOL_MBIND then allocations outside of the given
nodes should fail. They can violate the cpuset boundaries only if they are
kernel allocations and we are not in a hardwall cpuset.
That was at least my understand when working on this code years ago.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-12 21:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-11 14:06 [RFC 0/6] cpuset/mempolicies related fixes and cleanups Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 14:06 ` [RFC 1/6] mm, page_alloc: fix more premature OOM due to race with cpuset update Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 17:24 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-04-11 19:00 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-12 21:25 ` Christoph Lameter [this message]
2017-04-13 6:24 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-14 20:37 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-04-26 8:07 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-30 21:33 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-17 9:20 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-17 13:56 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-17 14:05 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-17 14:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-17 14:56 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-17 15:25 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-18 9:08 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-18 16:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-18 17:24 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-18 19:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-19 7:37 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-17 15:27 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-18 10:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-05-18 17:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-05-19 11:27 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-13 5:42 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-04-13 6:06 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-13 6:07 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 14:06 ` [RFC 2/6] mm, mempolicy: stop adjusting current->il_next in mpol_rebind_nodemask() Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 17:32 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-04-11 19:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-12 8:49 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-12 21:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2017-04-12 21:18 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 14:06 ` [RFC 3/6] mm, page_alloc: pass preferred nid instead of zonelist to allocator Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 14:06 ` [RFC 4/6] mm, mempolicy: simplify rebinding mempolicies when updating cpusets Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 14:06 ` [RFC 5/6] mm, cpuset: always use seqlock when changing task's nodemask Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-12 8:10 ` Hillf Danton
2017-04-12 8:18 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-04-11 14:06 ` [RFC 6/6] mm, mempolicy: don't check cpuset seqlock where it doesn't matter Vlastimil Babka
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=alpine.DEB.2.20.1704121617040.28335@east.gentwo.org \
--to=cl@linux.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).