All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
	mgorman@suse.de, rientjes@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:52:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161212085254.GC18163@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201612112253.GGH60933.tOMHJQOFSOFFVL@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>

On Sun 11-12-16 22:53:55, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 08-12-16 21:53:44, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > If we could agree
> > > > with calling __alloc_pages_nowmark() before out_of_memory() if __GFP_NOFAIL
> > > > is given, we can avoid locking up while minimizing possibility of invoking
> > > > the OOM killer...
> > >
> > > I do not understand. We do __alloc_pages_nowmark even when oom is called
> > > for GFP_NOFAIL.
> > 
> > Where is that? I can find __alloc_pages_nowmark() after out_of_memory()
> > if __GFP_NOFAIL is given, but I can't find __alloc_pages_nowmark() before
> > out_of_memory() if __GFP_NOFAIL is given.
> > 
> > What I mean is below patch folded into
> > "[PATCH 1/2] mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator slowpath".
> > 
> Oops, I wrongly implemented "__alloc_pages_nowmark() before out_of_memory() if
> __GFP_NOFAIL is given." case. Updated version is shown below.

If you want to introduce such a change then make sure to justify it
properly in the changelog. I will not comment on this change here
because I believe it is not directly needed for neither of the two
patches.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
	mgorman@suse.de, rientjes@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:52:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161212085254.GC18163@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201612112253.GGH60933.tOMHJQOFSOFFVL@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>

On Sun 11-12-16 22:53:55, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 08-12-16 21:53:44, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > If we could agree
> > > > with calling __alloc_pages_nowmark() before out_of_memory() if __GFP_NOFAIL
> > > > is given, we can avoid locking up while minimizing possibility of invoking
> > > > the OOM killer...
> > >
> > > I do not understand. We do __alloc_pages_nowmark even when oom is called
> > > for GFP_NOFAIL.
> > 
> > Where is that? I can find __alloc_pages_nowmark() after out_of_memory()
> > if __GFP_NOFAIL is given, but I can't find __alloc_pages_nowmark() before
> > out_of_memory() if __GFP_NOFAIL is given.
> > 
> > What I mean is below patch folded into
> > "[PATCH 1/2] mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator slowpath".
> > 
> Oops, I wrongly implemented "__alloc_pages_nowmark() before out_of_memory() if
> __GFP_NOFAIL is given." case. Updated version is shown below.

If you want to introduce such a change then make sure to justify it
properly in the changelog. I will not comment on this change here
because I believe it is not directly needed for neither of the two
patches.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-12-12  8:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-12-01 15:25 [PATCH 0/2] GFP_NOFAIL cleanups Michal Hocko
2016-12-01 15:25 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-01 15:25 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator slowpath Michal Hocko
2016-12-01 15:25   ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-01 15:25 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Michal Hocko
2016-12-01 15:25   ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-02  7:23   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-12-02  7:23     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-12-05 13:45   ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-05 13:45     ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-05 14:10     ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-05 14:10       ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-06  8:27       ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-06  8:27         ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-06 10:38       ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-06 10:38         ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-06 11:03         ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-12-06 11:03           ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-12-06 19:25           ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-06 19:25             ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-06 19:22         ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-06 19:22           ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-08 12:53           ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-08 12:53             ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-08 13:47             ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-08 13:47               ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-11 11:23               ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-11 11:23                 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-11 13:53                 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-11 13:53                   ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-12  8:52                   ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-12-12  8:52                     ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-12  8:48                 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-12  8:48                   ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-14 10:34                   ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-14 10:34                     ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16  7:39 OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58 ` OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58   ` [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58     ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 17:31     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-12-16 17:31       ` Johannes Weiner
2016-12-16 22:12       ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 22:12         ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-17 11:17         ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-17 11:17           ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-18 16:37           ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-18 16:37             ` Michal Hocko

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20161212085254.GC18163@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.