Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid livelock on !__GFP_FS allocations

[Minchan Kim]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:44 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
>> > diff --git a/kernel/power/suspend.c b/kernel/power/suspend.c
>> > index fdd4263..01aa9b5 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/power/suspend.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/power/suspend.c
>> > @@ -297,9 +297,11 @@ int enter_state(suspend_state_t state)
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âgoto Finish;
>> >
>> > Â Â Â Âpr_debug("PM: Entering %s sleep\n", pm_states[state]);
>> > + Â Â Â oom_killer_disable();
>> > Â Â Â Âpm_restrict_gfp_mask();
>> > Â Â Â Âerror = suspend_devices_and_enter(state);
>> > Â Â Â Âpm_restore_gfp_mask();
>> > + Â Â Â oom_killer_enable();
>> >
>> > ÂFinish:
>> > Â Â Â Âpr_debug("PM: Finishing wakeup.\n");
>> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> > index 6e8ecb6..d8c31b7 100644
>> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> > @@ -2177,9 +2177,9 @@ rebalance:
>> > Â Â Â Â * running out of options and have to consider going OOM
>> > Â Â Â Â */
>> > Â Â Â Âif (!did_some_progress) {
>> > - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)) {
>> > - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â if (oom_killer_disabled)
>> > + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â if (oom_killer_disabled)
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âgoto nopage;
>
> You're allowing __GFP_NOFAIL allocations to fail.
>
>> > + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)) {
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âpage = __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_mask, order,
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âzonelist, high_zoneidx,
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Ânodemask, preferred_zone,
>> >
>>
>> I'd prefer something like this. The whole 'gfp_allowed_flags' thing was
>> designed to make GFP_KERNEL work during boot time where it's obviously safe to
>> do that. I really don't think that's going to work suspend cleanly.
>>
>
> Adding Rafael to the cc.
>
> This has been done since 2.6.34 and presumably has been working quite
> well. ÂI don't have a specific objection to gfp_allowed_flags to be used
> outside of boot since it seems plausible that there are system-level
> contexts that would need different behavior in the page allocator and this
> does it effectively without major surgery or a slower fastpath. ÂSuspend
> is using it just like boot does before irqs are enabled, so I don't have
> an objection to it.
>

My point isn't using gfp_allowed_flags(maybe it's Pekka's concern) but
why adding new special case handling code like pm_suspended_storage.
I think we can handle the issue with oom_killer_disabled(but the naming is bad)

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/