On 04/18/16 at 06:12pm, Baoquan He wrote: > On 04/18/16 at 09:39am, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 01:32:53PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > > On 04/14/16 at 09:00pm, Russell King wrote: > > > > If we are unable to find a suitable page when allocating the control > > > > page, do not invoke the OOM-killer: killing processes probably isn't > > > > going to help. > > > > > > Originally kexec was made to reboot to test kernel quickly. If 1st > > > kernel is palyed and hurted in a bad state and developer want to discard > > > it and take a quick reboot, why don't we have a best try to make a > > > successful kexec load? > > > > And if it kills off every process trying to get a suitable page, > > which then means you can't do anything other than power cycle, > > that's okay? > > Yes, I agree on that it's non-sense if every process is killed. But will > each kexec load which need OOM-killer go that far? And there's only one > page (if 32 bit) or 2 pages (if 64 bit) for control page, it may not > need kill that many processes to pick one. Sorry, I was wrong. Those control pages are imtermediate pages which is used to copy kenrel and initrd from user buffer to their final place, they should be dozens of MB. So I am fine with this change, ack it. Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe at redhat.com> Thanks Baoquan
