On Wed 25-03-15 02:17:15, Johannes Weiner wrote: > GFP_NOFS allocations are not allowed to invoke the OOM killer since > their reclaim abilities are severely diminished. However, without the > OOM killer available there is no hope of progress once the reclaimable > pages have been exhausted. > > Don't risk hanging these allocations. Leave it to the allocation site > to implement the fallback policy for failing allocations. I fully support this. We need at least http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=142669354424905&w=2 for this to work properly, which I am planning to post soon. I am not sure the RO remount issues in ext4 seen in the previous round of the similar change have been addressed already. So it might be safer to route this separately from the previous OOM enahancements. > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> > --- > mm/page_alloc.c | 9 +-------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > index 832ad1c7cd4f..9e45e97aa934 100644 > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -2367,15 +2367,8 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int alloc_flags, > if (ac->high_zoneidx < ZONE_NORMAL) > goto out; > /* The OOM killer does not compensate for IO-less reclaim */ > - if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) { > - /* > - * XXX: Page reclaim didn't yield anything, > - * and the OOM killer can't be invoked, but > - * keep looping as per tradition. > - */ > - *did_some_progress = 1; > + if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) > goto out; > - } > if (pm_suspended_storage()) > goto out; > /* The OOM killer may not free memory on a specific node */ > -- > 2.3.3 > -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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
