On Mon 10-08-15 09:40:22, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 05:05:01PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 07-08-15 11:10:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > [...] > > > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c > > > index 257283f..52b9025 100644 > > > --- a/mm/slub.c > > > +++ b/mm/slub.c > > > @@ -1364,6 +1364,8 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node) > > > * so we fall-back to the minimum order allocation. > > > */ > > > alloc_gfp = (flags | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY) & ~__GFP_NOFAIL; > > > + if ((alloc_gfp & __GFP_WAIT) && oo_order(oo) > oo_order(s->min)) > > > + alloc_gfp = (alloc_gfp | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) & ~__GFP_WAIT; > > > > Wouldn't it be preferable to "fix" the __GFP_WAIT behavior than spilling > > __GFP_NOMEMALLOC around the kernel? GFP flags are getting harder and > > harder to use right and that is a signal we should thing about it and > > unclutter the current state. > > Maybe, it is preferable. Could you try that? I will try to cook up something during the week. > Anyway, it is separate issue so I don't want pending this patch until > that change. OK, fair enough, at least this one is in mm proper... -- 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>