On Mon 01-12-14 18:30:40, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:25:47AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 26-11-14 14:17:32, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > @@ -2706,7 +2706,7 @@ rebalance:
> > > * running out of options and have to consider going OOM
> > > */
> > > if (!did_some_progress) {
> > > - if (oom_gfp_allowed(gfp_mask)) {
> > /*
> > * Do not attempt to trigger OOM killer for !__GFP_FS
> > * allocations because it would be premature to kill
> > * anything just because the reclaim is stuck on
> > * dirty/writeback pages.
> > * __GFP_NORETRY allocations might fail and so the OOM
> > * would be more harmful than useful.
> > */
>
> I don't think we need to explain the individual flags, but it would
> indeed be useful to remark here that we shouldn't OOM kill from
> allocations contexts with (severely) limited reclaim abilities.
Is __GFP_NORETRY really related to limited reclaim abilities? I thought
it was merely a way to tell the allocator to fail rather than spend too
much time reclaiming. If you are referring to __GFP_FS part then I have
no objections to be less specific, of course, but __GFP_IO would fall
into the same category but we are not checking for it. I have no idea
why we consider the first and not the later one, to be honest...
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
