On Thu, 7 May 2009 22:38:13 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 07 May 2009, 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 > > > > struct zone *z; > > for_each_populated_zone(z) > > zone_set_flag(z, ZONE_OOM_LOCKED); > > > > and then > > > > for_each_populated_zone(z) > > zone_clear_flag(z, ZONE_OOM_LOCKED); > > > > The serialization is done with trylocks so this will never invoke the oom > > killer because all zones in the allocator's zonelist will be oom locked. > > > > Why does this not work for you? > > Well, it might work too, but why are you insisting? How's it better than > __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL, actually? > > Andrew, what do you think about this? I don't think I understand the proposal. Is it to provide a means by which PM can go in and set a state bit against each and every zone? If so, that's still a global boolean, only messier. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
