Hello, On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 03:24:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Right but isn't that what the caller explicitly asked for? Why should we > ignore that for kmem accounting? It seems like a fix at a wrong layer to > me. Either we should start failing GFP_NOWAIT charges when we are above > high wmark or deploy an additional catchup mechanism as suggested by > Tejun. I like the later more because it allows to better handle GFP_NOFS > requests as well and there are many sources of these from kmem paths. Yeah, this is beginning to look like we're trying to solve the problem at the wrong layer. slab/slub or whatever else should be able to use GFP_NOWAIT in whatever frequency they want for speculative allocations. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>