On Mon, 4 May 2009 17:02:22 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday 04 May 2009, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > Index: linux-2.6/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > +++ linux-2.6/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > @@ -1620,7 +1620,8 @@ nofail_alloc:
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* The OOM killer will not help higher order allocs so fail */
> > > - if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) {
> > > + if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER ||
> > > + (gfp_mask & __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL)) {
> > > clear_zonelist_oom(zonelist, gfp_mask);
> > > goto nopage;
> > > }
> >
> > This is inconsistent because __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL now implies __GFP_NORETRY
> > (the "goto nopage" above), but only for allocations with __GFP_FS set and
> > __GFP_NORETRY clear.
>
> Well, what would you suggest?
>
Did you check whether the existing __GFP_NORETRY will work as-is for
this requirement?
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
