Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190520044951.248096-1-drinkcat@chromium.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190520044951.248096-1-drinkcat@chromium.org>
From:   Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 May 2019 01:29:03 +0900
Message-ID: <CAC5umygGsW3Nju-mA-qE8kNBd9SSXeO=YXMkgFsFaceCytoAww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/failslab: By default, do not fail allocations with
 direct reclaim only
To:     Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2019=E5=B9=B45=E6=9C=8820=E6=97=A5(=E6=9C=88) 13:49 Nicolas Boichat <drinkc=
at@chromium.org>:
>
> When failslab was originally written, the intention of the
> "ignore-gfp-wait" flag default value ("N") was to fail
> GFP_ATOMIC allocations. Those were defined as (__GFP_HIGH),
> and the code would test for __GFP_WAIT (0x10u).
>
> However, since then, __GFP_WAIT was replaced by __GFP_RECLAIM
> (___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM|___GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM), and GFP_ATOMIC is
> now defined as (__GFP_HIGH|__GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM).
>
> This means that when the flag is false, almost no allocation
> ever fails (as even GFP_ATOMIC allocations contain
> __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM).
>
> Restore the original intent of the code, by ignoring calls
> that directly reclaim only (___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM), and thus,
> failing GFP_ATOMIC calls again by default.
>
> Fixes: 71baba4b92dc1fa1 ("mm, page_alloc: rename __GFP_WAIT to __GFP_RECL=
AIM")
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>

Good catch.

Reviewed-by: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>

> ---
>  mm/failslab.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/failslab.c b/mm/failslab.c
> index ec5aad211c5be97..33efcb60e633c0a 100644
> --- a/mm/failslab.c
> +++ b/mm/failslab.c
> @@ -23,7 +23,8 @@ bool __should_failslab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpf=
lags)
>         if (gfpflags & __GFP_NOFAIL)
>                 return false;
>
> -       if (failslab.ignore_gfp_reclaim && (gfpflags & __GFP_RECLAIM))
> +       if (failslab.ignore_gfp_reclaim &&
> +                       (gfpflags & ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM))
>                 return false;

Should we use __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM instead of ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM?
Because I found the following comment in gfp.h

/* Plain integer GFP bitmasks. Do not use this directly. */