lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Revert "kmemleak: allow to coexist with fault injection"
On Wed 17-07-19 01:50:31, 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:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 105 PID: 2138 at mm/page_alloc.c:4608 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1c31/0x1d50
> Modules linked in: loop dax_pmem dax_pmem_core ip_tables x_tables xfs virtio_net net_failover virtio_blk failover ata_generic virtio_pci virtio_ring virtio libata
> CPU: 105 PID: 2138 Comm: oom01 Not tainted 5.2.0-next-20190710+ #7
> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.10.2-0-g5f4c7b1-prebuilt.qemu-project.org 04/01/2014
> RIP: 0010:__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1c31/0x1d50
> ...
> kmemleak_alloc+0x4e/0xb0
> kmem_cache_alloc+0x2a7/0x3e0
> ? __kmalloc+0x1d6/0x470
> ? ___might_sleep+0x9c/0x170
> ? mempool_alloc+0x2b0/0x2b0
> mempool_alloc_slab+0x2d/0x40
> mempool_alloc+0x118/0x2b0
> ? __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20
> ? mempool_resize+0x390/0x390
> ? lock_downgrade+0x3c0/0x3c0
> bio_alloc_bioset+0x19d/0x350
> ? __swap_duplicate+0x161/0x240
> ? bvec_alloc+0x1b0/0x1b0
> ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa8/0x140
> ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x27/0x40
> get_swap_bio+0x80/0x230
> ? __x64_sys_madvise+0x50/0x50
> ? end_swap_bio_read+0x310/0x310
> ? __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20
> ? check_chain_key+0x24e/0x300
> ? bdev_write_page+0x55/0x130
> __swap_writepage+0x5ff/0xb20
>
> The mempool_alloc_slab() clears __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM, however kmemleak has
> __GFP_NOFAIL set all the time due to commit
> d9570ee3bd1d4f20ce63485f5ef05663866fe6c0 ("kmemleak: allow to coexist
> with fault injection"). But, it doesn't make any sense to have
> __GFP_NOFAIL and ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM specified at the same time.
>
> According to the discussion on the mailing list, the commit should be
> reverted for short term solution. Catalin Marinas would follow up with a better
> solution for longer term.
>
> The failure rate of kmemleak metadata allocation may increase in some
> circumstances, but this should be expected side effect.
>
> Suggested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
> Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>

I forgot
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

> ---
> mm/kmemleak.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
> index 9dd581d..884a5e3 100644
> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@
> /* GFP bitmask for kmemleak internal allocations */
> #define gfp_kmemleak_mask(gfp) (((gfp) & (GFP_KERNEL | GFP_ATOMIC)) | \
> __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | \
> - __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NOFAIL)
> + __GFP_NOWARN)
>
> /* scanning area inside a memory block */
> struct kmemleak_scan_area {
> --
> 1.8.3.1

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-17 07:08    [W:0.100 / U:13.376 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site