From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Qiang Huang <h.huangqiang@huawei.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: remove gfp helper function
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 16:52:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141203155222.GH23236@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141201233040.GB29642@phnom.home.cmpxchg.org>
On Mon 01-12-14 18:30:40, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:25:47AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 26-11-14 14:17:32, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > @@ -2706,7 +2706,7 @@ rebalance:
> > > * running out of options and have to consider going OOM
> > > */
> > > if (!did_some_progress) {
> > > - if (oom_gfp_allowed(gfp_mask)) {
> > /*
> > * Do not attempt to trigger OOM killer for !__GFP_FS
> > * allocations because it would be premature to kill
> > * anything just because the reclaim is stuck on
> > * dirty/writeback pages.
> > * __GFP_NORETRY allocations might fail and so the OOM
> > * would be more harmful than useful.
> > */
>
> I don't think we need to explain the individual flags, but it would
> indeed be useful to remark here that we shouldn't OOM kill from
> allocations contexts with (severely) limited reclaim abilities.
Is __GFP_NORETRY really related to limited reclaim abilities? I thought
it was merely a way to tell the allocator to fail rather than spend too
much time reclaiming. If you are referring to __GFP_FS part then I have
no objections to be less specific, of course, but __GFP_IO would fall
into the same category but we are not checking for it. I have no idea
why we consider the first and not the later one, to be honest...
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-03 15:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-26 22:17 [patch] mm, oom: remove gfp helper function David Rientjes
2014-11-27 10:25 ` Michal Hocko
2014-12-01 23:30 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-12-03 15:52 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2014-12-03 18:15 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-12-04 15:17 ` Michal Hocko
2014-12-04 20:19 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-12-05 14:05 ` Michal Hocko
2014-12-03 23:10 ` Andrew Morton
2014-12-01 23:23 ` Johannes Weiner
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=20141203155222.GH23236@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=h.huangqiang@huawei.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).