Re: [patch 04/12] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:53:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-06-14 15:54:24, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > There is no reason why oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges should
> > try to reclaim only once when every other charge tries several times
> > before giving up.  Make them all retry the same number of times.
> 
> OK, this makes sense for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL but does it make
> sense to do additional reclaim for tasks with fatal_signal_pending?
> 
> It is little bit unexpected, because we bypass if the condition happens
> before the reclaim but then we ignore it.

"mm: memcontrol: rearrange charging fast path", moves the pending
signal check inside the retry block, right before reclaim.

--
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>




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]