Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

Is there anything more to be done before this can get merged? I would relly like to target this to the next merge window. I already have some more changes which depend on this. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

Is there anything more to be done before this can get merged? I would relly like to target this to the next merge window. I already have some more changes which depend on this. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/30/2017 05:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Mon 30-01-17 17:15:08, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/30/2017 08:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Fri 27-01-17 21:12:26, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/27/2017 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] So to

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/30/2017 05:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Mon 30-01-17 17:15:08, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/30/2017 08:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Fri 27-01-17 21:12:26, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/27/2017 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] So to

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/30/2017 08:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Fri 27-01-17 21:12:26, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/27/2017 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] So to answer your second email with the bpf and netfilter hunks, why not replacing them with

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/30/2017 08:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Fri 27-01-17 21:12:26, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/27/2017 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] So to answer your second email with the bpf and netfilter hunks, why not replacing them with

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Mon 30-01-17 17:15:08, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/30/2017 08:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 27-01-17 21:12:26, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > On 01/27/2017 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > [...] > > > > > So to answer your

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Mon 30-01-17 17:15:08, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/30/2017 08:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 27-01-17 21:12:26, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > On 01/27/2017 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > [...] > > > > > So to answer your

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Fri 27-01-17 21:12:26, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/27/2017 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] > > > So to answer your second email with the bpf and netfilter hunks, why > > > not replacing them with kvmalloc() and __GFP_NORETRY flag and

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Fri 27-01-17 21:12:26, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/27/2017 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] > > > So to answer your second email with the bpf and netfilter hunks, why > > > not replacing them with kvmalloc() and __GFP_NORETRY flag and

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/27/2017 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 02:40 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] But realistically, how big is this problem really? Is it really worth it? You said this is an admin only interface and admin can kill the machine by

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/27/2017 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 02:40 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] But realistically, how big is this problem really? Is it really worth it? You said this is an admin only interface and admin can kill the machine by

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 02:40 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > But realistically, how big is this problem really? Is it really worth > > it? You said this is an admin only interface and admin can kill the > > machine by OOM and other means already. > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 21:34:04, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 02:40 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > But realistically, how big is this problem really? Is it really worth > > it? You said this is an admin only interface and admin can kill the > > machine by OOM and other means already. > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/26/2017 02:40 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 14:10:06, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] If you disagree I can drop the bpf part of course...

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/26/2017 02:40 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 14:10:06, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] If you disagree I can drop the bpf part of course...

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 14:40:04, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 26-01-17 14:10:06, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 01/26/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > > On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > If you disagree I can

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 14:40:04, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 26-01-17 14:10:06, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 01/26/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > > On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > If you disagree I can

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 14:10:06, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > If you disagree I can drop the bpf part of course... > > > > > > If we could

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 14:10:06, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > If you disagree I can drop the bpf part of course... > > > > > > If we could

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/26/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] If you disagree I can drop the bpf part of course... If we could consolidate these spots with kvmalloc() eventually, I'm all for it. But even if

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/26/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] If you disagree I can drop the bpf part of course... If we could consolidate these spots with kvmalloc() eventually, I'm all for it. But even if

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 04:14:37, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 11:32 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > So I have folded the following to the patch 1. It is in line with > > kvmalloc and hopefully at least tell more than the current code. > [] > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > [] >

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 04:14:37, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 11:32 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > So I have folded the following to the patch 1. It is in line with > > kvmalloc and hopefully at least tell more than the current code. > [] > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > [] >

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 11:32 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > So I have folded the following to the patch 1. It is in line with > kvmalloc and hopefully at least tell more than the current code. [] > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c [] > @@ -1741,6 +1741,13 @@ void

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 11:32 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > So I have folded the following to the patch 1. It is in line with > kvmalloc and hopefully at least tell more than the current code. [] > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c [] > @@ -1741,6 +1741,13 @@ void

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > If you disagree I can drop the bpf part of course... > > If we could consolidate these spots with kvmalloc() eventually, I'm > all for it. But even if __GFP_NORETRY is not covered down to all

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 12:33:55, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > If you disagree I can drop the bpf part of course... > > If we could consolidate these spots with kvmalloc() eventually, I'm > all for it. But even if __GFP_NORETRY is not covered down to all

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 12:04:13, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 11:32 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 26-01-17 11:08:02, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > > On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 12:04:13, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 11:32 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 26-01-17 11:08:02, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > > On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], right? If so, then it would unfortunately

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/26/2017 11:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], right? If so, then it would unfortunately

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/26/2017 11:32 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 11:08:02, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1],

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/26/2017 11:32 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 11:08:02, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1],

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 11:08:02, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > [...] > > > > I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], right? If so, then > > > > it

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 11:08:02, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > [...] > > > > I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], right? If so, then > > > > it

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] > > > I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], right? If so, then > > > it would unfortunately (partially) reintroduce the issue

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 26-01-17 10:36:49, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] > > > I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], right? If so, then > > > it would unfortunately (partially) reintroduce the issue

RE: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

From: Daniel Borkmann > Sent: 26 January 2017 09:37 ... > >> I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], right? If so, then > >> it would unfortunately (partially) reintroduce the issue that was fixed. > >> If you look above at flags, they're also passed to __vmalloc() to not > >> trigger

RE: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

From: Daniel Borkmann > Sent: 26 January 2017 09:37 ... > >> I assume that kvzalloc() is still the same from [1], right? If so, then > >> it would unfortunately (partially) reintroduce the issue that was fixed. > >> If you look above at flags, they're also passed to __vmalloc() to not > >> trigger

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/25/2017 07:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21,

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/26/2017 08:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: On 01/25/2017 07:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/25/2017 07:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > [...]

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Wed 25-01-17 21:16:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/25/2017 07:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > [...] > > > > > > Are

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/25/2017 07:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [...] Are there any more comments? I would really appreciate to hear

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On 01/25/2017 07:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [...] Are there any more comments? I would really appreciate to hear from networking folks

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: >>

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > > > Hi, >> > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > this has been previously posted as a single patch [1] but

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Wed 25-01-17 14:10:06, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > this has been previously posted as a single patch [1] but

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Hi, > > > this has been previously posted as a single patch [1] but later on more > > > built on top. It turned out that there

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Tue 24-01-17 11:17:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Hi, > > > this has been previously posted as a single patch [1] but later on more > > > built on top. It turned out that there

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Tue 24-01-17 08:00:26, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:17 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Are there any more comments? I would really appreciate to hear from > > networking folks before I resubmit the series. > > I do not see

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Tue 24-01-17 08:00:26, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:17 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Are there any more comments? I would really appreciate to hear from > > networking folks before I resubmit the series. > > I do not see

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi, > > this has been previously posted as a single patch [1] but later on more > > built on top. It turned out that there are users who would like to have > > __GFP_REPEAT semantic.

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi, > > this has been previously posted as a single patch [1] but later on more > > built on top. It turned out that there are users who would like to have > > __GFP_REPEAT semantic.

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:17 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > Are there any more comments? I would really appreciate to hear from > networking folks before I resubmit the series. I do not see any issues right now. I am happy to see this thing finally

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:17 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > Are there any more comments? I would really appreciate to hear from > networking folks before I resubmit the series. I do not see any issues right now. I am happy to see this thing finally

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > this has been previously posted as a single patch [1] but later on more > built on top. It turned out that there are users who would like to have > __GFP_REPEAT semantic. This is currently implemented for costly >64B > requests. Doing the same

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v3] kvmalloc

On Thu 12-01-17 16:37:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > this has been previously posted as a single patch [1] but later on more > built on top. It turned out that there are users who would like to have > __GFP_REPEAT semantic. This is currently implemented for costly >64B > requests. Doing the same