[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1110251510240.26017@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid livelock on !__GFP_FS allocations
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Colin Cross wrote:
> GFP_KERNEL is __GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS. Once driver suspend
> has started, gfp_allowed_mask is ~(__GFP_IO | GFP_FS), so any call to
> __alloc_pages_nodemask(GFP_KERNEL, ...) gets masked to effectively
> __alloc_pages_nodemask(__GFP_WAIT, ...).
>
Just passing __GFP_WAIT is the problem that you're trying to address,
though. Why not include __GFP_NORETRY since you know the liklihood of
allocation being successful on the second iteration is very slim since
you're not in a context where you can force reclaim or oom killing?
> The loop is in __alloc_pages_slowpath, from the rebalance label to
> should_alloc_retry.
The loop is by design and is activated because you're just passing
__GFP_WAIT in this context for no sensible reason.
--
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