Re: [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator

Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04T02:39:38Z

On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 06:07:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:52:18 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> wrote:
>
> > SLUB already try to allocate high order page with clearing __GFP_NOFAIL.
> > But, when allocating shadow page for kmemcheck, it missed clearing
> > the flag. This trigger WARN_ON_ONCE() reported by Christian Casteyde.
> >
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65991
> >
> > This patch fix this situation by using same allocation flag as original
> > allocation.
> >
> > Reported-by: Christian Casteyde <casteyde.christian@free.fr>
> > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index 545a170..3dd28b1 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -1335,11 +1335,12 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > page = alloc_slab_page(alloc_gfp, node, oo);
> > if (unlikely(!page)) {
> > oo = s->min;
>
> What is the value of s->min? Please tell me it's zero.

s->min is calculated by get_order(object size).
So if object size is less or equal than PAGE_SIZE, it would return zero.

>
> > + alloc_gfp = flags;
> > /*
> > * Allocation may have failed due to fragmentation.
> > * Try a lower order alloc if possible
> > */
> > - page = alloc_slab_page(flags, node, oo);
> > + page = alloc_slab_page(alloc_gfp, node, oo);
> >
> > if (page)
> > stat(s, ORDER_FALLBACK);
>
> This change doesn't actually do anything.

It set alloc_gfp to flags and we use alloc_gfp later.
It means that we try to allocate same order and flag as original allocation.

>
> > @@ -1349,7 +1350,7 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > && !(s->flags & (SLAB_NOTRACK | DEBUG_DEFAULT_FLAGS))) {
> > int pages = 1 << oo_order(oo);
> >
> > - kmemcheck_alloc_shadow(page, oo_order(oo), flags, node);
> > + kmemcheck_alloc_shadow(page, oo_order(oo), alloc_gfp, node);
>
> That seems reasonable, assuming kmemcheck can handle the allocation
> failure.

Yes, I looked at kmemcheck_alloc_shadow() at a glance, it can handle failure.

>
> Still I dislike this practice of using unnecessarily large allocations.
> What does it gain us? Slightly improved object packing density.
> Anything else?

There is no my likes and dislikes here.
Perhaps, Christoph would answer it.

Thanks.