[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105261315330.29101@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 13:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
David Sharp <dhsharp@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace: Set oom_score_adj to maximum for ring buffer
allocating process
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Hmm, have you tried this in practice? Yes we may kill the "echo" command
> but it doesn't stop the ring buffer from being allocated, and thus
> killing the echo command may not be enough, and those critical processes
> that you are trying to protect will be killed next.
>
> Perhaps we should change the allocation of the ring buffer or detect OOM
> triggering. Maybe make all the allocations ATOMIC, thus it will be
> either available or not, and fail instead of trying to swap out other
> memory for the allocation.
>
My impression of this was that it was attempting to avoid killing a
different process by means of the oom killer rather than avoiding swap. I
don't think there's anything wrong with using GFP_KERNEL, but I'd suggest
also using __GFP_NORETRY so the allocation calls into direct reclaim but
will avoid oom killing anything and simply failing instead.
--
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