[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5614AAC0.60002@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:16:48 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Kyle Walker <kwalker@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stanislav Kozina <skozina@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?
On 5.10.2015 16:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
> So I can see basically only few ways out of this deadlock situation.
> Either we face the reality and allow small allocations (withtout
> __GFP_NOFAIL) to fail after all attempts to reclaim memory have failed
> (so after even OOM killer hasn't made any progress).
Note that small allocations already *can* fail if they are done in the context
of a task selected as OOM victim (i.e. TIF_MEMDIE). And yeah I've seen a case
when they failed in a code that "handled" the allocation failure with a
BUG_ON(!page).
--
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