On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:25:47AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-11-14 14:17:32, David Rientjes wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -2706,7 +2706,7 @@ rebalance:
> > * running out of options and have to consider going OOM
> > */
> > if (!did_some_progress) {
> > - if (oom_gfp_allowed(gfp_mask)) {
> /*
> * Do not attempt to trigger OOM killer for !__GFP_FS
> * allocations because it would be premature to kill
> * anything just because the reclaim is stuck on
> * dirty/writeback pages.
> * __GFP_NORETRY allocations might fail and so the OOM
> * would be more harmful than useful.
> */
I don't think we need to explain the individual flags, but it would
indeed be useful to remark here that we shouldn't OOM kill from
allocations contexts with (severely) limited reclaim abilities.
--
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>