From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Miquel van Smoorenburg <mikevs@xs4all.net>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Glauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.26-rc: x86: pci-dma.c: use __GFP_NO_OOM instead of __GFP_NORETRY
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 04:47:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080528024727.GB20824@one.firstfloor.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080527014720.6db68517.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> So... why not just remove the setting of __GFP_NORETRY? Why is it
> wrong to oom-kill things in this case?
When the 16MB zone overflows (which can be common in some workloads)
calling the OOM killer is pretty useless because it has barely any
real user data [only exception would be the "only 16MB" case Alan
mentioned]. Killing random processes in this case is bad.
I think for 16MB __GFP_NORETRY is ok because there should be
nothing freeable in there so looping is useless. Only exception would be the
"only 16MB total" case again but I'm not sure 2.6 supports that at all
on x86.
On the other hand d_a_c() does more allocations than just 16MB, especially
on 64bit and the other zones need different strategies.
> But this change increases the chances of a caller getting stuck in the
> page allocator for ever, unable to make progress?
At least for much longer, yes I am somewhat worried about this too.
Sometimes a OOM regression test suite would be really nice.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-28 2:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-26 23:49 [PATCH] 2.6.26-rc: x86: pci-dma.c: use __GFP_NO_OOM instead of __GFP_NORETRY Miquel van Smoorenburg
2008-05-27 8:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-05-27 8:47 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-27 9:35 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2008-05-28 2:47 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2008-05-28 8:31 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2008-05-28 8:40 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-28 12:54 ` Andi Kleen
2008-06-02 10:15 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20080528024727.GB20824@one.firstfloor.org \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gcosta@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mikevs@xs4all.net \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).