From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
largret@gmail.com, 76306.1226@compuserve.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@suse.de
Subject: Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
Date: 28 Feb 2006 01:41:15 +0100
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:41:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060228004115.GA37362@muc.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602271429270.12204@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:30:02PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > Thinking about this more I think we need a __GFP_NOOOM for other
> > purposes too. e.g. the x86-64 IOMMU code tries to do similar
> > fallbacks and I suspect it will be hit by the OOM killer too.
>
> Isnt this also a constrained allocation? We could expand the check to also
> catch these types of restrictions and fail.
No, it uses the full fallback zone list of the target node, not a custom
one. Would be hard to detect without a flag.
Maybe __GFP_NORETRY is actually good enough for this purpose. Opinions?
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-28 0:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-26 14:35 OOM-killer too aggressive? Chuck Ebbert
2006-02-26 18:21 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-26 20:39 ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-26 21:04 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-26 21:06 ` Chris Largret
2006-02-26 21:31 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-26 23:00 ` Chris Largret
2006-02-27 0:20 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-27 1:01 ` Chris Largret
2006-02-27 1:57 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-27 6:34 ` Chris Largret
2006-02-26 23:47 ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-26 23:51 ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-27 22:30 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-02-28 0:41 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2006-02-28 0:59 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-28 1:03 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-02-28 1:25 ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-28 1:38 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-28 12:09 ` Andi Kleen
[not found] <5KvnZ-4uN-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
2006-02-26 18:39 ` Robert Hancock
2006-02-26 21:56 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2006-02-26 20:56 ` Chris Largret
2006-02-27 0:22 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2006-02-27 1:48 ` Chris Largret
2006-02-27 15:47 ` Marcelo Tosatti
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-02-26 23:32 Chuck Ebbert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060228004115.GA37362@muc.de \
--to=ak@muc.de \
--cc=76306.1226@compuserve.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=clameter@engr.sgi.com \
--cc=largret@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.