[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200905072238.14558.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 22:38:13 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: 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 Thursday 07 May 2009, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > OK, let's try with __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL first. If there's too much disagreement,
> > I'll use the freezer-based approach instead.
> >
>
> Third time I'm going to suggest this, and I'd like a response on why it's
> not possible instead of being ignored.
>
> All of your tasks are in D state other than kthreads, right? That means
> they won't be in the oom killer (thus no zones are oom locked), so you can
> easily do this
>
> struct zone *z;
> for_each_populated_zone(z)
> zone_set_flag(z, ZONE_OOM_LOCKED);
>
> and then
>
> for_each_populated_zone(z)
> zone_clear_flag(z, ZONE_OOM_LOCKED);
>
> The serialization is done with trylocks so this will never invoke the oom
> killer because all zones in the allocator's zonelist will be oom locked.
>
> Why does this not work for you?
Well, it might work too, but why are you insisting? How's it better than
__GFP_NO_OOM_KILL, actually?
Andrew, what do you think about this?
--
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