Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag

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

 



On Thursday 07 May 2009, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > OK, let's try with __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL first.  If there's too much disagreement,
> > I'll use the freezer-based approach instead.
> > 
> 
> Third time I'm going to suggest this, and I'd like a response on why it's 
> not possible instead of being ignored.
> 
> All of your tasks are in D state other than kthreads, right?  That means 
> they won't be in the oom killer (thus no zones are oom locked), so you can 
> easily do this
> 
> 	struct zone *z;
> 	for_each_populated_zone(z)
> 		zone_set_flag(z, ZONE_OOM_LOCKED);
> 
> and then
> 
> 	for_each_populated_zone(z)
> 		zone_clear_flag(z, ZONE_OOM_LOCKED);
> 
> The serialization is done with trylocks so this will never invoke the oom 
> killer because all zones in the allocator's zonelist will be oom locked.
> 
> Why does this not work for you?

Well, it might work too, but why are you insisting?  How's it better than
__GFP_NO_OOM_KILL, actually?

Andrew, what do you think about this?
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux