[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nbd] [PATCH 1/4] mm: prevent potential recursive reclaim due to clearing PF_MEMALLOC

The function __alloc_pages_direct_compact() sets PF_MEMALLOC to prevent
deadlock during page migration by lock_page() (see the comment in
__unmap_and_move()). Then it unconditionally clears the flag, which can clear a
pre-existing PF_MEMALLOC flag and result in recursive reclaim. This was not a
problem until commit a8161d1ed609 ("mm, page_alloc: restructure direct
compaction handling in slowpath"), because direct compation was called only
after direct reclaim, which was skipped when PF_MEMALLOC flag was set.

Even now it's only a theoretical issue, as the new callsite of
__alloc_pages_direct_compact() is reached only for costly orders and when
gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed() is true, which means either __GFP_NOMEMALLOC is in
gfp_flags or in_interrupt() is true. There is no such known context, but let's
play it safe and make __alloc_pages_direct_compact() robust for cases where
PF_MEMALLOC is already set.

Fixes: a8161d1ed609 ("mm, page_alloc: restructure direct compaction handling in slowpath")
Reported-by: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...2319...>
Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...1290...>
Cc: <stable@...25...>
 mm/page_alloc.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 3589f8be53be..b84e6ffbe756 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3288,6 +3288,7 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
 		enum compact_priority prio, enum compact_result *compact_result)
 	struct page *page;
+	unsigned int noreclaim_flag = current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC;
 	if (!order)
 		return NULL;
@@ -3295,7 +3296,7 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
 	current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC;
 	*compact_result = try_to_compact_pages(gfp_mask, order, alloc_flags, ac,
-	current->flags &= ~PF_MEMALLOC;
+	current->flags = (current->flags & ~PF_MEMALLOC) | noreclaim_flag;
 	if (*compact_result <= COMPACT_INACTIVE)
 		return NULL;

Reply to: