On 11.11.2015 14:48, mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> mm/page_alloc.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 8034909faad2..d30bce9d7ac8 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2766,8 +2766,16 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> goto out;
> }
> /* Exhausted what can be done so it's blamo time */
> - if (out_of_memory(&oc) || WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> + if (out_of_memory(&oc) || WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) {
> *did_some_progress = 1;
> +
> + if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) {
> + page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, order,
> + ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS|ALLOC_CPUSET, ac);
> + WARN_ONCE(!page, "Unable to fullfil gfp_nofail allocation."
> + " Consider increasing min_free_kbytes.\n");
It seems redundant to me to keep the WARN_ON_ONCE also above in the if () part?
Also s/gfp_nofail/GFP_NOFAIL/ for consistency?
Hm and probably out of scope of your patch, but I understand the WARN_ONCE
(WARN_ON_ONCE) to be _ONCE just to prevent a flood from a single task looping
here. But for distinct tasks and potentially far away in time, wouldn't we want
to see all the warnings? Would that be feasible to implement?
> + }
> + }
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&oom_lock);
> return page;
>
--
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>