On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:41 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 20-01-17 16:33:36, Hillf Danton wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 9:49 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -1013,7 +1013,7 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> > > * make sure exclude 0 mask - all other users should have at least
> > > * ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM to get here.
> > > */
> > > - if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOFAIL)))
> > > + if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> > > return true;
> > >
> > As to GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL request, can we check gfp mask
> > one bit after another?
> >
> > if (oc->gfp_mask) {
> > if (!(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> > return false;
> >
> > /* No service for request that can handle fail result itself */
> > if (!(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> > return false;
> > }
>
> I really do not understand this request.
It's a request of both NOFS and NOFAIL, and I think we can keep it from
hitting oom killer by shuffling the current gfp checks.
I hope it can make nit sense to your work.
> This patch is removing the __GFP_NOFAIL part...
Yes, and I don't stick to handling NOFAIL requests inside oom.
> Besides that why should they return false?
It's feedback to page allocator that no kill is issued, and
extra attention is needed.
thanks
Hillf
--
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>
