From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 09:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <200905040210.10153.rjw@sisk.pl> <200905041702.23291.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1241455491; bh=PDmrg107SuWmEarzfxOjV/2nU+0=; h=DomainKey-Signature:Date:From:X-X-Sender:To:cc:Subject: In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:User-Agent:MIME-Version: Content-Type:X-System-Of-Record; b=ChSKfeLIVvTctuHqc/tKBg/+k7Zc+pm Dhns6UFHjdyK5OZObiLkKgJrpVu1r473uccvYua4/iCyqHEEK/ke0TQ== In-Reply-To: <200905041702.23291.rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Wu Fengguang , linux-pm-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, alan-jenkins-cCz0Lq7MMjm9FHfhHBbuYA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org 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? > A couple things: - rebase this on mmotm so that it doesn't conflict with Mel Gorman's page allocator speedup changes, and - avoid the final call to get_page_from_freelist() for !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL) by adding a check for it alongside (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) and !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY) because it should really only catch parallel oom killings which won't happen in your suspend case since it uses ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH. The latter is important to avoid unnecessary dependencies among low-level __GFP_* flags (although all __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL allocations should really all be passing __GFP_NORETRY too to avoid relying too heavily on direct reclaim).