[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090511104310.B9C1.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:45:05 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
San Mehat <san@...roid.com>, Arve Hjonnevag <arve@...roid.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 08/11 -mmotm] oom: invoke oom killer for __GFP_NOFAIL
> On Mon, 11 May 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> > > The oom killer must be invoked regardless of the order if the allocation
> > > is __GFP_NOFAIL, otherwise it will loop forever when reclaim fails to
> > > free some memory.
> >
> > This is intensional behavior. plus you change very widely caller bahavior.
> > if you don't have good test program, I nak this.
> >
>
> What exactly are you objecting to? You don't want the oom killer called
> for a __GFP_NOFAIL allocation above PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER that could not
> reclaim any memory and would prefer that it loop endlessly in the page
> allocator? What's the purpose of that if the oom killer could free a very
> large memory hogging task?
My point is, if we change gfp-flags meaning, we should change
unintentional affected caller.
Do you oppose 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