[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905111529090.2234@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: gregkh@...e.de, npiggin@...e.de, mel@....ul.ie,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, san@...roid.com, 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, Andrew Morton wrote:
> __GFP_NOFAIL is a bad fiction. Allocations _can_ fail, and callers should
> detect and suitably handle this (and not by lamely moving the infinite
> loop up to the caller level either).
>
> Attempting to use __GFP_NOFAIL for a higher-order allocation is even
> worse, so add a once-off runtime check for this to slap people around for
> even thinking about trying it.
>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
This only emits a warning when you have CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL,
CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION, and CONFIG_FAIL_PAGE_ALLOC, which is all related
to fault injection (since we never want to inject a fault into anything
using __GFP_NOFAIL). So it may be helpful in tracking down such callers,
but is unrelated to the config options that enable it and it may not get
the best coverage.
--
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