[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160226092406.GB8940@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:24:07 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
Cc: 'Hugh Dickins' <hughd@...gle.com>,
'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
On Fri 26-02-16 15:54:19, Hillf Danton wrote:
> >
> > 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
nofail only means that the page allocator doesn't return with NULL.
OOM killer is still not put aside...
> 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;
This is defeating the whole purpose of the rework - to behave
deterministically. You have just disabled the oom killer completely.
This is not the way to go
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists