On Sun 11-12-16 22:53:55, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 08-12-16 21:53:44, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > If we could agree > > > > with calling __alloc_pages_nowmark() before out_of_memory() if __GFP_NOFAIL > > > > is given, we can avoid locking up while minimizing possibility of invoking > > > > the OOM killer... > > > > > > I do not understand. We do __alloc_pages_nowmark even when oom is called > > > for GFP_NOFAIL. > > > > Where is that? I can find __alloc_pages_nowmark() after out_of_memory() > > if __GFP_NOFAIL is given, but I can't find __alloc_pages_nowmark() before > > out_of_memory() if __GFP_NOFAIL is given. > > > > What I mean is below patch folded into > > "[PATCH 1/2] mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator slowpath". > > > Oops, I wrongly implemented "__alloc_pages_nowmark() before out_of_memory() if > __GFP_NOFAIL is given." case. Updated version is shown below. If you want to introduce such a change then make sure to justify it properly in the changelog. I will not comment on this change here because I believe it is not directly needed for neither of the two patches. -- 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>