On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 06:07:35PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 02-01-19 13:06:19, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
> > >> index f9d9dc250428..9e1aa3b7df75 100644
> > >> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> > >> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> > >> @@ -576,6 +576,16 @@ static struct kmemleak_object
> > >> *create_object(unsigned long ptr, size_t size,
> > >> struct rb_node **link, *rb_parent;
> > >>
> > >> object = kmem_cache_alloc(object_cache, gfp_kmemleak_mask(gfp));
> > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT
> > >> + if (!object) {
> > >> + /* last-ditch effort in a low-memory situation */
> > >> + if (irqs_disabled() || is_idle_task(current) ||
> > >> in_atomic())
> > >> + gfp = GFP_ATOMIC;
> > >> + else
> > >> + gfp = gfp_kmemleak_mask(gfp) |
> > >> __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM;
> > >> + object = kmem_cache_alloc(object_cache, gfp);
> > >> + }
> > >> +#endif
[...]
> I will not object to this workaround but I strongly believe that
> kmemleak should rethink the metadata allocation strategy to be really
> robust.
This would be nice indeed and it was discussed last year. I just haven't
got around to trying anything yet:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=152812489819532
--
Catalin
