[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTikR0nsGaXgLvGQ_a01JeK0LgLxT_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:18:55 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: readahead and oom
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
>> Minchan,
>>
>>> > +static inline struct page *page_cache_alloc_cold_noretry(struct address_space *x)
>>> > +{
>>> > + return __page_cache_alloc(mapping_gfp_mask(x)|__GFP_COLD|__GFP_NORETRY);
>>>
>>> It makes sense to me but it could make a noise about page allocation
>>> failure. I think it's not desirable.
>>> How about adding __GFP_NOWARAN?
>>
>> Yeah it makes sense. Here is the new version.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fengguang
>> ---
>> Subject: readahead: readahead page allocations is OK to fail
>> Date: Tue Apr 26 14:29:40 CST 2011
>>
>> Pass __GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_NOWARN for readahead page allocations.
>>
>> readahead page allocations are completely optional. They are OK to
>> fail and in particular shall not trigger OOM on themselves.
>>
>> Reported-by: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
>> Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.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