Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 19-02-15 06:01:24, Johannes Weiner wrote: > [...] > > Preferrably, we'd get rid of all nofail allocations and replace them > > with preallocated reserves. But this is not going to happen anytime > > soon, so what other option do we have than resolving this on the OOM > > killer side? > > As I've mentioned in other email, we might give GFP_NOFAIL allocator > access to memory reserves (by giving it __GFP_HIGH). This is still not a > 100% solution because reserves could get depleted but this risk is there > even with multiple oom victims. I would still argue that this would be a > better approach because selecting more victims might hit pathological > case more easily (other victims might be blocked on the very same lock > e.g.). > Does "multiple OOM victims" mean "select next if first does not die"? Then, I think my timeout patch http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=142002495532320&w=2 does not deplete memory reserves. ;-) If we change to permit invocation of the OOM killer for GFP_NOFS / GFP_NOIO, those who do not want to fail (e.g. journal transaction) will start passing __GFP_NOFAIL? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
