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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: document kmemleak's non-blockable
 __GFP_NOFAIL case
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     mhocko@suse.com, dvyukov@google.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1562964544-59519-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20190713212548.GZ32320@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <4b4eb1f9-440c-f4cd-942c-2c11b566c4c0@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20190715130648.GA32320@bombadil.infradead.org>
From:   Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Message-ID: <a991ac12-3610-f993-e44c-b12adab17fe1@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jul 2019 10:00:34 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190715130648.GA32320@bombadil.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 7/15/19 6:06 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 08:47:07PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>
>> On 7/13/19 2:25 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 04:49:04AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>> When running ltp's oom test with kmemleak enabled, the below warning was
>>>> triggerred since kernel detects __GFP_NOFAIL & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is
>>>> passed in:
>>> There are lots of places where kmemleak will call kmalloc with
>>> __GFP_NOFAIL and ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM (including the XArray code, which
>>> is how I know about it).  It needs to be fixed to allow its internal
>>> allocations to fail and return failure of the original allocation as
>>> a consequence.
>> Do you mean kmemleak internal allocation? It would fail even though
>> __GFP_NOFAIL is passed in if GFP_NOWAIT is specified. Currently buddy
>> allocator will not retry if the allocation is non-blockable.
> Actually it sets off a warning.  Which is the right response from the
> core mm code because specifying __GFP_NOFAIL and __GFP_NOWAIT makes no
> sense.

Yes, this is what I meant. Kmemleak did a trick to fool fault-injection 
by passing in __GFP_NOFAIL, but it doesn't make sense for non-blockable 
allocation.