On Tue 13-09-16 21:13:21, zhong jiang wrote: > On 2016/9/13 1:44, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > If you want to solve this problem properly then you would have to give > > tasks which are looping in the page allocator access to some portion of > > memory reserves. This is quite tricky to do right, though. > > To use some portion of memory reserves is almost no effect in a so > starvation scenario. I think the hungtask still will occur. it can > not solve the problem primarily. Granting an access to memory reserves is of course no full solution but it raises chances for a forward progress. Other solutions would have to guarantee that the memory reclaimed on behalf of the requester will be given to the requester. Not an easy task > > Retry counters with the fail path have been proposed in the past and not > > accepted. > > The above patch have been tested by runing the trinity. The question > is fixed. Is there any reasonable reason oppose to the patch ? or it > will bring in any side-effect. Sure there is. Low order allocations have been traditionally non failing and changing that behavior is a major obstacle because it opens up a door to many bugs. I've tried to do something similar in the past and there was a strong resistance against it. Believe me been there done that... -- 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>