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

[Colin Cross]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:24 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Colin Cross wrote:
>
>> > Or, rather, when pm_restrict_gfp_mask() clears __GFP_IO and __GFP_FS that
>> > it also has the same behavior as __GFP_NORETRY in should_alloc_retry() by
>> > setting a variable in file scope.
>> >
>>
>> Why do you prefer that over adding a gfp_required_mask?
>>
>
> Because it avoids an unnecessary OR in the page and slab allocator
> fastpaths which are red hot :)
>

Makes sense.  What about this?  Official patch to follow.

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index fef8dc3..59cd4ff 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -1786,6 +1786,13 @@ should_alloc_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
                return 0;

        /*
+        * If PM has disabled I/O, OOM is disabled and reclaim is unlikely
+        * to make any progress.  To prevent a livelock, don't retry.
+        */
+       if (!(gfp_allowed_mask & __GFP_FS))
+               return 0;
+
+       /*
         * In this implementation, order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER
         * means __GFP_NOFAIL, but that may not be true in other
         * implementations.
--
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/