On Mon 09-01-17 08:00:16, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > the changelog doesn't mention it but this, unlike other kvmalloc > > conversions is not without functional changes. The kmalloc part > > will be weaker than it is with the original code for !costly (<64kB) > > requests, because we are enforcing __GFP_NORETRY to break out from the > > page allocator which doesn't really fail such a small requests. > > > > Now the question is what those code paths really prefer. Do they really > > want to potentially loop in the page allocator and invoke the OOM killer > > when the memory is short/fragmeted? I mean we can get into a situation > > when no order-3 pages can be compacted and shooting the system down just > > for that reason sounds quite dangerous to me. > > > > So the main question is how hard should we try before falling back to > > vmalloc here? > > This patch is fine : > > 1) Default hash size is 1024 slots, 8192 bytes on 64bit arches. What about those non-default configurations. Do they really want to invoke the OOM killer rather than fallback to the vmalloc? -- 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>