[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090601225602.3482cd0d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 22:56:02 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
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>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3 -mmotm] oom: invoke oom killer for __GFP_NOFAIL
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 18:31:14 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> 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.
>
> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 12 +++++++-----
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1547,7 +1547,7 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> goto out;
>
> /* The OOM killer will not help higher order allocs */
> - if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
> + if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> goto out;
>
> /* Exhausted what can be done so it's blamo time */
> @@ -1765,11 +1765,13 @@ rebalance:
> goto got_pg;
>
> /*
> - * The OOM killer does not trigger for high-order allocations
> - * but if no progress is being made, there are no other
> - * options and retrying is unlikely to help
> + * The OOM killer does not trigger for high-order
> + * ~__GFP_NOFAIL allocations so if no progress is being
> + * made, there are no other options and retrying is
> + * unlikely to help.
> */
> - if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
> + if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
> + !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> goto nopage;
>
> goto restart;
I really think/hope/expect that this is unneeded.
Do we know of any callsites which do greater-than-order-0 allocations
with GFP_NOFAIL? If so, we should fix them.
Then just ban order>0 && GFP_NOFAIL allocations.
--
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