Re: [RFC 0/8] Allow GFP_NOFS allocation to fail

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

 



Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Thoughts? Opinions?
> 
> To me, fixing callers (adding __GFP_NORETRY to callers) in a step-by-step
> fashion after adding proactive countermeasure sounds better than changing
> the default behavior (implicitly applying __GFP_NORETRY inside).
> 

Ping?

I showed you at http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=144198479931388 that
changing the default behavior can not terminate the game of Whack-A-Mole.
As long as there are unkillable threads, we can't kill context-sensitive
moles.

I believe that what we need to do now is to add a proactive countermeasure
(e.g. kill more processes) than try to reduce the possibility of hitting
this issue (e.g. allow !__GFP_FS to fail).

--
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]