On Tue 24-02-26 12:39:33, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 11:08:02PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 23-02-26 20:25:38, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2026, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 05:33:30PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > > > The commit 07003531e03c8 ("mm/vmalloc: warn on invalid vmalloc gfp
> > > > > flags") breaks the device mapper VDO target. The VDO target calls
> > > > > vmalloc
> > > > > with __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL and this flag is not in the mask of allowed
> > > > > flags.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no reason why vmalloc couldn't support __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL,
> > > > > so
> > > > > let's add this flag to GFP_VMALLOC_SUPPORTED.
> > > >
> > > > My only skepticism about this comes from the line in the
> > > > vmalloc_node_range() doc:
> > > > "and %__GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL are not supported."
> > > >
> > > > I myself don't know why that may be. Could you elaborate on if/why the
> > > > doc is wrong please?
> > >
> > > This statement was added by Michal Hocko in the commit
> > > b7d90e7a5ea8d64e668d5685925900d33d3884d5. Michal, could you explain why
> > > do
> > > you think that __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL is not supported?
> >
> > The problem with __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL is that it cannot be fully
> > supported. While pages that back the allocation can be easily made aware
> > of this failure mode there are page table allocations which are
> > hardocded GFP_KERNEL and there is no sensible way to extend the API to
> > change that (as we have learned several time over years).
> >
> > > The VDO module needs to allocate large amounts of memory and it doesn't
> > > want to trigger the OOM killer (which would kill some innocent task and
> > > wouldn't solve the out of memory condition at all), so I think that
> > > __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL is appropriate.
> >
> > Understood. But as said the very page table allocation could be the
> > trigger for the unwanted OOM. The same applies to __GFP_NORETRY
> > unfortunately as well. vmalloc has just recently gained support of
> > GFP_NOWAIT allocation mode, though. This will make the allocation
> > failure much more likely though so I am not entirely sure this is a
> > proper solution for your problem.
> >
> Yes, the page-table manipulation entries are hard-coded and it looks
> like it is the last path which is not wired properly with gfp-flags.
>
> Since we grow PTEs and never release it might not be a big issue for
> the __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL usage. But it is still not valid in noted path.
One thing that we could do to improve __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL resp.
__GFP_NORETRY is to use NOWAIT allocation semantic for page table
allocations as those could be achieved by scoped allocation context.
This could cause pre-mature failure after the whole bunch of memory has
already been allocated for the backing pages but considering that page
table allocations should be more and more rare over system runtime it
might be just a reasonable workaround. WDYT?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
