Michal Hocko wrote:
> Look, I really appreciate your sentiment for for nommu platform but with
> an absolute lack of _any_ oom reports on that platform that I am aware
> of nor any reports about lockups during oom I am less than thrilled to
> add a code to fix a problem which even might not exist. Nommu is usually
> very special with a very specific workload running (e.g. no overcommit)
> so I strongly suspect that any OOM theories are highly academic.
If you believe that there is really no oom report, get rid of the OOM
killer completely.
>
> All I do care about is to not regress nommu as much as possible. So can
> we get back to the proposed patch and updates I have done to address
> your review feedback please?
No unless we get rid of the OOM killer if CONFIG_MMU=n.
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 170db4d..e931969 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3312,7 +3312,8 @@ void warn_alloc(gfp_t gfp_mask, nodemask_t *nodemask, const char *fmt, ...)
goto out;
/* Exhausted what can be done so it's blamo time */
- if (out_of_memory(&oc) || WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) {
+ if ((IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMU) && out_of_memory(&oc)) ||
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) {
*did_some_progress = 1;
/*
--
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>
