From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763197AbZEGUgA (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 16:36:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762761AbZEGUfs (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 16:35:48 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:40451 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754392AbZEGUfr (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 16:35:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 22:35:18 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: David Rientjes Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , fengguang.wu@intel.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag Message-ID: <20090507203518.GA1652@ucw.cz> References: <200905072133.48917.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090507130202.34cbe37a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200905072218.50782.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 2009-05-07 13:25:06, David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 7 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > OK, let's try with __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL first. If there's too much disagreement, > > I'll use the freezer-based approach instead. > > > > Third time I'm going to suggest this, and I'd like a response on why it's > not possible instead of being ignored. > > All of your tasks are in D state other than kthreads, right? That means > they won't be in the oom killer (thus no zones are oom locked), so you can > easily do this Well, OOM killer may be running on behalf of some kthread at that point....? Quite unlikely, but possible AFAICT. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 22:35:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20090507203518.GA1652@ucw.cz> References: <200905072133.48917.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090507130202.34cbe37a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200905072218.50782.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: David Rientjes Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , fengguang.wu-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-pm-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, alan-jenkins-cCz0Lq7MMjm9FHfhHBbuYA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Thu 2009-05-07 13:25:06, David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 7 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > OK, let's try with __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL first. If there's too much disagreement, > > I'll use the freezer-based approach instead. > > > > Third time I'm going to suggest this, and I'd like a response on why it's > not possible instead of being ignored. > > All of your tasks are in D state other than kthreads, right? That means > they won't be in the oom killer (thus no zones are oom locked), so you can > easily do this Well, OOM killer may be running on behalf of some kthread at that point....? Quite unlikely, but possible AFAICT. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html