Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 5.10.2015 16:44, Michal Hocko wrote: > > So I can see basically only few ways out of this deadlock situation. > > Either we face the reality and allow small allocations (withtout > > __GFP_NOFAIL) to fail after all attempts to reclaim memory have failed > > (so after even OOM killer hasn't made any progress). > > Note that small allocations already *can* fail if they are done in the context > of a task selected as OOM victim (i.e. TIF_MEMDIE). And yeah I've seen a case > when they failed in a code that "handled" the allocation failure with a > BUG_ON(!page). > Did You hit a race described below? http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201508272249.HDH81838.FtQOLMFFOVSJOH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Where was the BUG_ON(!page) ? Maybe it is a candidate for adding __GFP_NOFAIL. -- 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>