Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: do not loop over ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS without triggering reclaim

From: David Rientjes
Date: Mon Nov 16 2015 - 16:19:00 EST

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> __alloc_pages_slowpath is looping over ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS requests if
> __GFP_NOFAIL is requested. This is fragile because we are basically
> relying on somebody else to make the reclaim (be it the direct reclaim
> or OOM killer) for us. The caller might be holding resources (e.g.
> locks) which block other other reclaimers from making any progress for
> example. Remove the retry loop and rely on __alloc_pages_slowpath to
> invoke all allowed reclaim steps and retry logic.
> We have to be careful about __GFP_NOFAIL allocations from the
> PF_MEMALLOC context even though this is a very bad idea to begin with
> because no progress can be gurateed at all. We shouldn't break the
> __GFP_NOFAIL semantic here though. It could be argued that this is
> essentially GFP_NOWAIT context which we do not support but PF_MEMALLOC
> is much harder to check for existing users because they might happen
> deep down the code path performed much later after setting the flag
> so we cannot really rule out there is no kernel path triggering this
> combination.
> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>

It'll be scary if anything actually relies on this, but I think it's more
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at