On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:06:49 -0800 (PST)
David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> > From viewpoint of panic-on-oom lover, this patch seems to cause regression.
> > please do this check after sysctl_panic_on_oom == 2 test.
> > I think it's easy. So, temporary Nack to this patch itself.
> >
> >
> > And I think calling notifier is not very bad in the situation.
> > ==
> > void out_of_memory()
> > ..snip..
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain(&oom_notify_list, 0, &freed);
> >
> >
> > So,
> >
> > if (sysctl_panic_on_oom == 2) {
> > dump_header(NULL, gfp_mask, order, NULL);
> > panic("out of memory. Compulsory panic_on_oom is selected.\n");
> > }
> >
> > if (gfp_zone(gfp_mask) < ZONE_NORMAL) /* oom-kill is useless if lowmem is exhausted. */
> > return;
> >
> > is better. I think.
> >
>
> I can't agree with that assessment, I don't think it's a desired result to
> ever panic the machine regardless of what /proc/sys/vm/panic_on_oom is set
> to because a lowmem page allocation fails especially considering, as
> mentioned in the changelog, these allocations are never __GFP_NOFAIL and
> returning NULL is acceptable.
>
please add
WARN_ON((high_zoneidx < ZONE_NORMAL) && (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
somewhere. Then, it seems your patch makes sense.
I don't like the "possibility" of inifinte loops.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>