[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] mm: kmemleak: replace __GFP_NOFAIL to GFP_NOWAIT in gfp_kmemleak_mask
On 22 April 2018 at 23:00, Dmitry Vyukov <> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Michal Hocko <> wrote:
>> On Fri 20-04-18 18:50:24, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 12:58:33AM +0800, Chunyu Hu wrote:
>>> > __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOFAIL are combined in gfp_kmemleak_mask now.
>>> > But it's a wrong combination. As __GFP_NOFAIL is blockable, but
>>> > __GFP_NORETY is not blockable, make it self-contradiction.
>>> >
>>> > __GFP_NOFAIL means 'The VM implementation _must_ retry infinitely'. But
>>> > it's not the real intention, as kmemleak allow alloc failure happen in
>>> > memory pressure, in that case kmemleak just disables itself.
>>> Good point. The __GFP_NOFAIL flag was added by commit d9570ee3bd1d
>>> ("kmemleak: allow to coexist with fault injection") to keep kmemleak
>>> usable under fault injection.
>>> > commit 9a67f6488eca ("mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator
>>> > slowpath") documented that what user wants here should use GFP_NOWAIT, and
>>> > the WARN in __alloc_pages_slowpath caught this weird usage.
>>> >
>>> > <snip>
>>> > WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 64 at mm/page_alloc.c:4261 __alloc_pages_slowpath+0x1cc3/0x2780
>>> [...]
>>> > Replace the __GFP_NOFAIL with GFP_NOWAIT in gfp_kmemleak_mask, __GFP_NORETRY
>>> > and GFP_NOWAIT are in the gfp_kmemleak_mask. So kmemleak object allocaion
>>> > is no blockable and no reclaim, making kmemleak less disruptive to user
>>> > processes in pressure.
>>> It doesn't solve the fault injection problem for kmemleak (unless we
>>> change __should_failslab() somehow, not sure yet). An option would be to
>>> replace __GFP_NORETRY with __GFP_NOFAIL in kmemleak when fault injection
>>> is enabled.
>> Cannot we simply have a disable_fault_injection knob around the
>> allocation rather than playing this dirty tricks with gfp flags which do
>> not make any sense?

To this way, looks like we need to change the attrs. but what we have stored in
attr is also gfp flags, even we define a new member, ignore_flags, we still
need a new flag, or did I miss something? But looks like a new flag is simple.

For slab, it supports cache_filter, so it's possible to add a
filer_out slab flag,
and skip it. But for page, it's just has gfp flag and size info for
filter, no other info.


static struct {
struct fault_attr attr;

bool ignore_gfp_highmem;
bool ignore_gfp_reclaim;
u32 min_order;
} fail_page_alloc = {
.ignore_gfp_reclaim = true,
.ignore_gfp_highmem = true,
.min_order = 1,

static struct {
struct fault_attr attr;
bool ignore_gfp_reclaim;
bool cache_filter;
} failslab = {
.ignore_gfp_reclaim = true,
.cache_filter = false,

>>> BTW, does the combination of NOWAIT and NORETRY make kmemleak
>>> allocations more likely to fail?
>> NOWAIT + NORETRY simply doesn't make much sesne. It is equivalent to
> Specifying a flag that says "don't do fault injection for this
> allocation" looks like a reasonable solution. Fewer lines of code and
> no need to switch on interrupts. __GFP_NOFAIL seems to mean more than
> that, so perhaps we need a separate flag that affects only fault
> injection and should be used only in debugging code (no-op without
> fault injection anyway).

Got the two places for skipping fault injection, both they check the gfp flags
as part of the work. If we have the new no fault inject flag, and
define the wrapper
as below, then it will look like.

bool __should_failslab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags)
/* No fault-injection for bootstrap cache */
if (unlikely(s == kmem_cache))
return false;

if (gfpflags & _GFP_NOFAULTINJECTL)
return false;

if (failslab.ignore_gfp_reclaim && (gfpflags & __GFP_RECLAIM))
return false;

if (failslab.cache_filter && !(s->flags & SLAB_FAILSLAB))
return false;

return should_fail(&failslab.attr, s->object_size);

static bool should_fail_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
if (order < fail_page_alloc.min_order)
return false;
if (gfp_mask & _GFP_NOFAULTINJECT)
return false;
if (fail_page_alloc.ignore_gfp_highmem && (gfp_mask & __GFP_HIGHMEM))
return false;
if (fail_page_alloc.ignore_gfp_reclaim &&
(gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM))
return false;

return should_fail(&fail_page_alloc.attr, 1 << order);

the gfp flags defined in linux/gfp.h. we have now 24 flags already, and we have
an precedent ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP for skipping lockdep.

/* Plain integer GFP bitmasks. Do not use this directly. */
#define ___GFP_DMA 0x01u
#define ___GFP_HIGHMEM 0x02u
#define ___GFP_DMA32 0x04u
#define ___GFP_MOVABLE 0x08u
#define ___GFP_RECLAIMABLE 0x10u
#define ___GFP_HIGH 0x20u
#define ___GFP_IO 0x40u
#define ___GFP_FS 0x80u
#define ___GFP_NOWARN 0x200u
#define ___GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL 0x400u
#define ___GFP_NOFAIL 0x800u
#define ___GFP_NORETRY 0x1000u
#define ___GFP_MEMALLOC 0x2000u
#define ___GFP_COMP 0x4000u
#define ___GFP_ZERO 0x8000u
#define ___GFP_NOMEMALLOC 0x10000u
#define ___GFP_HARDWALL 0x20000u
#define ___GFP_THISNODE 0x40000u
#define ___GFP_ATOMIC 0x80000u
#define ___GFP_ACCOUNT 0x100000u
#define ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM 0x400000u
#define ___GFP_WRITE 0x800000u
#define ___GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM 0x1000000u
#define ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP 0x2000000u
#define ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP 0

So if there is a new flag, it would be the 25th bits.

#define ___GFP_NOFAULTINJECT 0x4000000u

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-23 06:18    [W:0.107 / U:2.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site