[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <009a01d1706a$e666dc00$b3349400$@alibaba-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:54:19 +0800
From: "Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
To: "'Hugh Dickins'" <hughd@...gle.com>,
"'Michal Hocko'" <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"'Linus Torvalds'" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"'Johannes Weiner'" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"'Mel Gorman'" <mgorman@...e.de>,
"'David Rientjes'" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"'Tetsuo Handa'" <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
"'KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki'" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, "'LKML'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'Sergey Senozhatsky'" <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4
>
> It didn't really help, I'm afraid: it reduces the actual number of OOM
> kills which occur before the job is terminated, but doesn't stop the
> job from being terminated very soon.
>
> I also tried Hillf's patch (separately) too, but as you expected,
> it didn't seem to make any difference.
>
Perhaps non-costly means NOFAIL as shown by folding the two
patches into one. Can it make any sense?
thanks
Hillf
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c Thu Feb 25 15:43:18 2016
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c Fri Feb 26 15:18:55 2016
@@ -3113,6 +3113,8 @@ should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, uns
struct zone *zone;
struct zoneref *z;
+ if (order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
+ return true;
/*
* Make sure we converge to OOM if we cannot make any progress
* several times in the row.
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists