On Thu 03-04-25 09:21:50, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 09:43:39AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > mm/slub.c | 8 +++++--- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c > > index b46f87662e71..2da40c2f6478 100644 > > --- a/mm/slub.c > > +++ b/mm/slub.c > > @@ -4972,14 +4972,16 @@ static gfp_t kmalloc_gfp_adjust(gfp_t flags, size_t size) > > * We want to attempt a large physically contiguous block first because > > * it is less likely to fragment multiple larger blocks and therefore > > * contribute to a long term fragmentation less than vmalloc fallback. > > - * However make sure that larger requests are not too disruptive - no > > - * OOM killer and no allocation failure warnings as we have a fallback. > > + * However make sure that larger requests are not too disruptive - i.e. > > + * do not direct reclaim unless physically continuous memory is preferred > > + * (__GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL mode). We still kick in kswapd/kcompactd to start > > + * working in the background but the allocation itself. > > I think a word is missing here? "...but do the allocation..." or > "...allocation itself happens" ? Thinking about this some more I would just cut this short and go with "We still kick in kswapd/kcompactd to start working in the background" Does that sound better? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
