From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <200905031830.49690.rjw@sisk.pl> <200905040208.43040.rjw@sisk.pl> <200905040210.10153.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200905040210.10153.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, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk, jens.axboe@oracle.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Wu Fengguang , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Andrew Morton List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 4 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Index: linux-2.6/mm/page_alloc.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ linux-2.6/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -1620,7 +1620,8 @@ nofail_alloc: > } > > /* The OOM killer will not help higher order allocs so fail */ > - if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) { > + if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER || > + (gfp_mask & __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL)) { > clear_zonelist_oom(zonelist, gfp_mask); > goto nopage; > } This is inconsistent because __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL now implies __GFP_NORETRY (the "goto nopage" above), but only for allocations with __GFP_FS set and __GFP_NORETRY clear.