[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f11576a0905120436k2e846494n802cf4cf6aefec7a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 20:36:38 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, gregkh@...e.de,
npiggin@...e.de, mel@....ul.ie, 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
>> > Not sure it would help since the oom killer will be now be called for such
>> > an allocation and that dumps the stack (and will actually show the order
>> > and gfp flags as well).
>>
>> No, the intent of that warning is to find all call sites which use
>> __GFP_NOFAIL on order>0 so we can hunt down and eliminate them.
>>
>>
>> please review...
>
> Fully agreed, people should use banker's algorithm to guarantee
> progress, not create deadlocks with inf loops.
>
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
me too.
>
>> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>>
>> __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>
--
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