On Tue 26-01-16 00:08:28, Tetsuo Handa wrote: [...] > If it turned out that we are using GFP_NOFS from LSM hooks correctly, > I'd expect such GFP_NOFS allocations retry unless SIGKILL is pending. > Filesystems might be able to handle GFP_NOFS allocation failures. But > userspace might not be able to handle system call failures caused by > GFP_NOFS allocation failures; OOM-unkillable processes might unexpectedly > terminate as if they are OOM-killed. Would you please add GFP_KILLABLE > to list of the topics? Are there so many places to justify a flag? Isn't it easier to check for fatal_signal_pending in the failed path and do the retry otherwise? This allows for a more flexible fallback strategy - e.g. drop the locks and retry again, sleep for reasonable time, wait for some event etc... This sounds much more extensible than a single flag burried down in the allocator path. Besides that all allocations besides __GFP_NOFAIL and GFP_NOFS are already killable. The first one by definition and the later one because of the current implementation restrictions which we can hopefully fix longterm. -- 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>