On Mon 11-01-16 12:00:47, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:07:16PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > After the OOM killer is disabled during suspend operation, > > any !__GFP_NOFAIL && __GFP_FS allocations are forced to fail. > > Thus, any !__GFP_NOFAIL && !__GFP_FS allocations should be > > forced to fail as well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Why? We had to acknowledge that !__GFP_FS allocations can not fail > even when they can't invoke the OOM killer. They are NOFAIL. Just like > an explicit __GFP_NOFAIL they should trigger a warning when they occur > after the OOM killer has been disabled and then keep looping. They are more like GFP_KERNEL than GFP_NOFAIL IMO because unlike GFP_NOFAIL they are already allowed to fail due to fatal_signals_pending and this has been the case for a really long time. Even semantically they are basically GFP_KERNEL with FS recursion protection in majority cases. And I believe that we should allow them to fail long term after some FS (btrfs at least) catch up and start handling failures properly. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>