[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1110252347330.20273@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
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:
> >> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> >> index fef8dc3..59cd4ff 100644
> >> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> >> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> >> @@ -1786,6 +1786,13 @@ should_alloc_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> >> return 0;
> >>
> >> /*
> >> + * If PM has disabled I/O, OOM is disabled and reclaim is unlikely
> >> + * to make any progress. To prevent a livelock, don't retry.
> >> + */
> >> + if (!(gfp_allowed_mask & __GFP_FS))
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> * In this implementation, order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER
> >> * means __GFP_NOFAIL, but that may not be true in other
> >> * implementations.
> >
> > Eek, this is precisely what we don't want and is functionally the same as
> > what you initially proposed except it doesn't care about __GFP_NOFAIL.
>
> This is checking against gfp_allowed_mask, not gfp_mask.
>
gfp_allowed_mask is initialized to GFP_BOOT_MASK to start so that __GFP_FS
is never allowed before the slab allocator is completely initialized, so
you've now implicitly made all early boot allocations to be __GFP_NORETRY
even though they may not pass it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists