On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:27:29PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> Thanks to Johanns and Daisuke for suggestion.
> =
> Hugepage allocation shouldn't trigger oom.
> Allocation failure is not fatal.
>
> Orignal-patch-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: mmotm-0125/mm/memcontrol.c
> ===================================================================
> --- mmotm-0125.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ mmotm-0125/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2369,11 +2369,14 @@ static int mem_cgroup_charge_common(stru
> struct page_cgroup *pc;
> int ret;
> int page_size = PAGE_SIZE;
> + bool oom;
>
> if (PageTransHuge(page)) {
> page_size <<= compound_order(page);
> VM_BUG_ON(!PageTransHuge(page));
> - }
> + oom = false;
> + } else
> + oom = true;
That needs a comment. You can take the one from my patch if you like.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>