From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 11:48:07 -0700 Message-ID: <20090507114807.d7c6d26a.akpm__48179.8569126569$1241722641$gmane$org@linux-foundation.org> References: <200905060120.35698.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090505164028.e9d807a1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200905072009.53406.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200905072009.53406.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk, jens.axboe@oracle.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, fengguang.wu@intel.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 7 May 2009 20:09:52 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > > I'm suspecting that hibernation can allocate its pages with > > > > __GFP_FS|__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_NOWARN, and the page allocator > > > > will dtrt: no oom-killings. > > > > > > > > In which case, processes_are_frozen() is not needed at all? > > > > > > __GFP_NORETRY alone causes it to fail relatively quickly, but I'll try with > > > the combination. > > > > OK. __GFP_WAIT is the big hammer. > > Unfortunately it fails too quickly with the combination as well, so it looks > like we can't use __GFP_NORETRY during hibernation. hm. So where do we stand now? I'm not a big fan of the global application-specific state change thing. Something like __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL has a better chance of being reused by other subsystems in the future, which is a good indicator.