lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Linux 4.9-rc6
From
Date
On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 00:34 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > Another potential issue with CONFIG_VMAP_STACK is that we make no
> > attempt to allocate 4 consecutive pages.
> >
> > Even if we have plenty of memory, 4 calls to alloc_page() are likely to
> > give us 4 pages in completely different locations.
> >
> > Here I printed the hugepage number of the 4 pages for some stacks :
> >
> >
> > 0xffffc9001a07c000-0xffffc9001a081000 20480 _do_fork+0xe1/0x360 pages=4 vmalloc Hfcac Hfeba Hfec0 Hfc9d N0=4
> > 0xffffc9001a084000-0xffffc9001a089000 20480 _do_fork+0xe1/0x360 pages=4 vmalloc Hfc79 Hfc79 Hfc79 Hfc83 N0=4
> > 0xffffc9001a08c000-0xffffc9001a091000 20480 _do_fork+0xe1/0x360 pages=4 vmalloc Hfc9b Hfe91 Hfebe Hfca2 N0=4
> > 0xffffc9001a094000-0xffffc9001a099000 20480 _do_fork+0xe1/0x360 pages=4 vmalloc Hfcaa Hfcaa Hfca6 Hfebc N0=4
> > 0xffffc9001a09c000-0xffffc9001a0a1000 20480 _do_fork+0xe1/0x360 pages=4 vmalloc Hfe9b Hfe90 Hff09 Hfefb N0=4
> > 0xffffc9001a0a4000-0xffffc9001a0a9000 20480 _do_fork+0xe1/0x360 pages=4 vmalloc Hfe94 Hfe62 Hfea0 Hfe7b N0=4
> > 0xffffc9001a0ac000-0xffffc9001a0b1000 20480 _do_fork+0xe1/0x360 pages=4 vmalloc Hfe78 Hff05 Hff05 Hfc74 N0=4
> > 0xffffc9001a0b4000-0xffffc9001a0b9000 20480 _do_fork+0xe1/0x360 pages=4 vmalloc Hfc9b Hfc9b Hfe83 Hf782 N0=4
> > 0xffffc9001a0bc000-0xffffc9001a0c1000 20480 _do_fork+0xe1/0x360 pages=4 vmalloc Hfe78 Hfe78 Hfc7f Hfc7f N0=4
> > 0xffffc9001a0c4000-0xffffc9001a0c9000 20480 _do_fork+0xe1/0x360 pages=4 vmalloc Hfebe Hfebe Hfe82 Hfe85 N0=4
> > 0xffffc9001a0cc000-0xffffc9001a0d1000 20480 _do_fork+0xe1/0x360 pages=4 vmalloc Hfc6b Hfe62 Hfe62 Hfcaa N0=4
> > 0xffffc9001a0d4000-0xffffc9001a0d9000 20480 _do_fork+0xe1/0x360 pages=4 vmalloc Hfebd Hfebd Hfc92 Hfc92 N0=4
> >
> > This is a vmalloc() generic issue that is worth fixing now ?
> >
> > Note this RFC might conflict with NUMA interleave policy.
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > index f2481cb4e6b2..0123e97debb9 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > @@ -1602,9 +1602,10 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > pgprot_t prot, int node)
> > {
> > struct page **pages;
> > - unsigned int nr_pages, array_size, i;
> > + unsigned int nr_pages, array_size, i, j;
> > const gfp_t nested_gfp = (gfp_mask & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK) | __GFP_ZERO;
> > const gfp_t alloc_mask = gfp_mask | __GFP_NOWARN;
> > + const gfp_t multi_alloc_mask = (gfp_mask & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) | __GFP_NORETRY;
> >
> > nr_pages = get_vm_area_size(area) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > array_size = (nr_pages * sizeof(struct page *));
>
> I think multi_alloc_mask wants to use alloc_mask rather than gfp_mask
> before clearing the bit, otherwise the failed high-order allocations with
> no chance to reclaim will spew page allocation failure warnings. Using
> __GFP_NORETRY here would be a no-op, but it depends on the implementation
> so no problems setting it.

Oh, this was definitely my intent of course, thanks for noticing this
typo ;)



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-21 14:33    [W:0.061 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site