Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-173487-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of oppo.com designates
 58.252.5.68 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=58.252.5.68; helo=mail.oppo.com; pr=C
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 23:31:36 +0800
From: Hailong Liu <hailong.liu@oppo.com>
To: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>
CC: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	<urezki@gmail.com>, <hch@infradead.org>, <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
	<21cnbao@gmail.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<xiang@kernel.org>, <chao@kernel.org>, Oven <liyangouwen1@oppo.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/vmalloc: fix vmalloc which may return null if
 called with __GFP_NOFAIL
Message-ID: <20240508153136.x4rxildsgza234uv@oppo.com>
References: <20240508125808.28882-1-hailong.liu@oppo.com>
 <404add29-2d3f-45db-9103-0c5b66fb254e@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20240508144321.ymnhn54daaabalhe@oppo.com>
 <90a127e5-d884-44b5-bb76-773a7485c2f1@linux.alibaba.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <90a127e5-d884-44b5-bb76-773a7485c2f1@linux.alibaba.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2024 15:31:37.9614
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 53df1b1d-43eb-46b9-ffe4-08dc6f73f3c2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: f1905eb1-c353-41c5-9516-62b4a54b5ee6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=f1905eb1-c353-41c5-9516-62b4a54b5ee6;Ip=[58.252.5.68];Helo=[mail.oppo.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource:
	HK2PEPF00006FB0.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: TYZPR02MB5892

On Wed, 08. May 23:10, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2024/5/8 22:43, Hailong Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, 08. May 21:41, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > >
> > > +Cc Michal,
> > >
> > > On 2024/5/8 20:58, hailong.liu@oppo.com wrote:
> > > > From: "Hailong.Liu" <hailong.liu@oppo.com>
> > > >
> > > > Commit a421ef303008 ("mm: allow !GFP_KERNEL allocations for kvmalloc")
> > > > includes support for __GFP_NOFAIL, but it presents a conflict with
> > > > commit dd544141b9eb ("vmalloc: back off when the current task is
> > > > OOM-killed"). A possible scenario is as belows:
> > > >
> > > > process-a
> > > > kvcalloc(n, m, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL)
> > > >       __vmalloc_node_range()
> > > > 	__vmalloc_area_node()
> > > > 	    vm_area_alloc_pages()
> > > >               --> oom-killer send SIGKILL to process-a
> > > >               if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) break;
> > > > --> return NULL;
> > > >
> > > > to fix this, do not check fatal_signal_pending() in vm_area_alloc_pages()
> > > > if __GFP_NOFAIL set.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Oven <liyangouwen1@oppo.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Hailong.Liu <hailong.liu@oppo.com>
> > >
> > > Why taging this as RFC here?  It seems a corner-case fix of
> > > commit a421ef303008
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Gao Xiang
> > >
> >
> > Hi Gao Xiang:
> >
> > RFC here to wait for a better way to handle this case :).
> > IMO, if vmalloc support __GFP_NOFAIL it should not return
> > null even system is deadlock on memory.
>
> The starting point is that kmalloc doesn't support __GFP_NOFAIL
> if order > 1 (even for very short temporary uses), see:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/mm/page_alloc.c?h=v6.8#n2896
>
> but it is possible if we have such page pointer array (since two
> (order-1) pages can only keep 1024 8-byte entries, it can happen
> if compression ratios are high), and kvmalloc(__GFP_NOFAIL) has
> already been supported for almost two years, it will fallback to
> order-0 allocation as described in commit e9c3cda4d86e
> ("mm, vmalloc: fix high order __GFP_NOFAIL allocations").
>
> With my limited understanding, I'm not sure why it can cause
> deadlock here since it will fallback to order-0 allocation then,
> and such allocation is just for short temporary uses again
> because kmalloc doesn't support order > 1 short memory
> allocation strictly.
>

deadlock on memory meands there is a memory leak causing
system to be unable to allocate memory not actual
*deadlock*.

> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
>

--

Best Regards,
Hailong.