On Tue 17-06-14 11:45:27, Johannes Weiner wrote: > 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. Right you are. Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> -- 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>