[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905071340470.6598@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 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, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 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?
>
Because I agree with Christoph's concerns about needlessly adding
additional gfp flags; he was responding to the proposed addition of
__GFP_PANIC which could be handled in other much simpler ways just like
this flag can as I've shown.
--
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