[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090507114807.d7c6d26a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 11:48:07 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: rientjes@...gle.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, pavel@....cz,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag
On Thu, 7 May 2009 20:09:52 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > > > I'm suspecting that hibernation can allocate its pages with
> > > > __GFP_FS|__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_NOWARN, and the page allocator
> > > > will dtrt: no oom-killings.
> > > >
> > > > In which case, processes_are_frozen() is not needed at all?
> > >
> > > __GFP_NORETRY alone causes it to fail relatively quickly, but I'll try with
> > > the combination.
> >
> > OK. __GFP_WAIT is the big hammer.
>
> Unfortunately it fails too quickly with the combination as well, so it looks
> like we can't use __GFP_NORETRY during hibernation.
hm.
So where do we stand now?
I'm not a big fan of the global application-specific state change
thing. Something like __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL has a better chance of being
reused by other subsystems in the future, which is a good indicator.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists