[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201503152206.AGJ22930.HOStFFFQLVMOOJ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 22:06:54 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@...e.cz
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, david@...morbit.com,
mgorman@...e.de, riel@...hat.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Allow small allocations to fail
Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 15-03-15 14:43:37, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> [...]
> > If you want to count only those retries which involved OOM killer, you need
> > to do like
> >
> > - nr_retries++;
> > + if (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)
> > + nr_retries++;
> >
> > in this patch.
>
> No, we shouldn't create another type of hidden NOFAIL allocation like
> this. I understand that the wording of the changelog might be confusing,
> though.
>
> It says: "This implementation counts only those retries which involved
> OOM killer because we do not want to be too eager to fail the request."
>
> Would it be more clear if I changed that to?
> "This implemetnation counts only those retries when the system is
> considered OOM because all previous reclaim attempts have resulted
> in no progress because we do not want to be too eager to fail the
> request."
>
> We definitely _want_ to fail GFP_NOFS allocations.
I see. The updated changelog is much more clear.
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
>
--
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