Skip to content
Commit 30ce3021 authored by David Rientjes's avatar David Rientjes Committed by Greg Kroah-Hartman
Browse files

net, skbuff: do not prefer skb allocation fails early

[ Upstream commit f8c468e8 ]

Commit dcda9b04 ("mm, tree wide: replace __GFP_REPEAT by
__GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL with more useful semantic") replaced __GFP_REPEAT in
alloc_skb_with_frags() with __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL when the allocation may
directly reclaim.

The previous behavior would require reclaim up to 1 << order pages for
skb aligned header_len of order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER before failing,
otherwise the allocations in alloc_skb() would loop in the page allocator
looking for memory.  __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL makes both allocations failable
under memory pressure, including for the HEAD allocation.

This can cause, among many other things, write() to fail with ENOTCONN
during RPC when under memory pressure.

These allocations should succeed as they did previous to dcda9b04
even if it requires calling the oom killer and additional looping in the
page allocator to find memory.  There is no way to specify the previous
behavior of __GFP_REPEAT, but it's unlikely to be necessary since the
previous behavior only guaranteed that 1 << order pages would be reclaimed
before failing for order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER.  That reclaim is not
guaranteed to be contiguous memory, so repeating for such large orders is
usually not beneficial.

Removing the setting of __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL to restore the previous
behavior, specifically not allowing alloc_skb() to fail for small orders
and oom kill if necessary rather than allowing RPCs to fail.

Fixes: dcda9b04

 ("mm, tree wide: replace __GFP_REPEAT by __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL with more useful semantic")
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarEric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: default avatarGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
parent 28c8d59c
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment