[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905101719040.31823@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc: 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?
--
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