From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753087AbcLFIo0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2016 03:44:26 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:34077 "EHLO mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752958AbcLFIoW (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2016 03:44:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:27:39 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Tetsuo Handa 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 Message-ID: <20161206082738.GA18664@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20161201152517.27698-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20161201152517.27698-3-mhocko@kernel.org> <201612052245.HDB21880.OHJMOOQFFSVLtF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20161205141009.GJ30758@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161205141009.GJ30758@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 05-12-16 15:10:09, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > So we are somewhere in the middle between pre-mature and pointless > system disruption (GFP_NOFS with a lots of metadata or lowmem request) > where the OOM killer even might not help and potential lockup which is > inevitable with the current design. Dunno about you but I would rather > go with the first option. To be honest I really fail to understand your > line of argumentation. We have this > do { > cond_resched(); > } (page = alloc_page(GFP_NOFS)); This should have been while (!(page = alloc_page(GFP_NOFS))) of course... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs