From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm 8/9 v2] oom: avoid oom killer for lowmem allocations
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:53:30 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100216075330.GJ5723@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1002152334260.7470@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:41:49PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > > As I already explained when you first brought this up, the possibility of
> > > not invoking the oom killer is not unique to GFP_DMA, it is also possible
> > > for GFP_NOFS. Since __GFP_NOFAIL is deprecated and there are no current
> > > users of GFP_DMA | __GFP_NOFAIL, that warning is completely unnecessary.
> > > We're not adding any additional __GFP_NOFAIL allocations.
> >
> > Completely agree with this request. Actually, I think even better you
> > should just add && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL). Deprecated doesn't mean
> > it is OK to break the API (callers *will* oops or corrupt memory if
> > __GFP_NOFAIL returns NULL).
> >
>
> ... unless it's used with GFP_ATOMIC, which we've always returned NULL
> for when even ALLOC_HARDER can't find pages, right?
Ye, it's never worked with GFP_ATOMIC.
> I'm wondering where this strong argument in favor of continuing to support
> __GFP_NOFAIL was when I insisted we call the oom killer for them even for
> allocations over PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER when __alloc_pages_nodemask() was
> refactored back in 2.6.31. The argument was that nobody is allocating
> that high of orders of __GFP_NOFAIL pages so we don't need to free memory
> for them and that's where the deprecation of the modifier happened in the
> first place. Ultimately, we did invoke the oom killer for those
> allocations because there's no chance of forward progress otherwise and,
> unlike __GFP_DMA, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL actually is popular.
I don't know. IMO we should never just randomly weaken or break such
flag as the page allocator API.
>
> I'll add this check to __alloc_pages_may_oom() for the !(gfp_mask &
> __GFP_NOFAIL) path since we're all content with endlessly looping.
Thanks. Yes endlessly looping is far preferable to randomly oopsing
or corrupting memory.
--
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:[~2010-02-16 7:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-15 22:19 [patch -mm 0/9 v2] oom killer rewrite David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 1/9 v2] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset David Rientjes
2010-02-16 6:14 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 2/9 v2] oom: sacrifice child with highest badness score for parent David Rientjes
2010-02-16 6:15 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 3/9 v2] oom: select task from tasklist for mempolicy ooms David Rientjes
2010-02-23 6:31 ` Balbir Singh
2010-02-23 8:17 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 4/9 v2] oom: remove compulsory panic_on_oom mode David Rientjes
2010-02-16 0:00 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 0:14 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 0:23 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 9:02 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 23:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 23:54 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 0:01 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 0:31 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 0:41 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 0:54 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 1:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 1:58 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 2:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 2:23 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 2:37 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 2:28 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 2:34 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 2:58 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 3:21 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 9:11 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 9:52 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-17 22:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-22 5:31 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-02-22 6:15 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-22 11:42 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-02-22 20:59 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-22 23:51 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-22 20:55 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 2:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-16 6:20 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 6:59 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 7:20 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 7:53 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 8:08 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 8:10 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 8:42 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 5/9 v2] oom: badness heuristic rewrite David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 6/9 v2] oom: deprecate oom_adj tunable David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:28 ` Alan Cox
2010-02-15 22:35 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 7/9 v2] oom: replace sysctls with quick mode David Rientjes
2010-02-16 6:28 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 8:58 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 8/9 v2] oom: avoid oom killer for lowmem allocations David Rientjes
2010-02-15 23:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 0:10 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 0:21 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 1:13 ` [patch] mm: add comment about deprecation of __GFP_NOFAIL David Rientjes
2010-02-16 1:26 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 7:03 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 7:23 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 5:32 ` [patch -mm 8/9 v2] oom: avoid oom killer for lowmem allocations KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-16 7:29 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 6:44 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 7:41 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 7:53 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2010-02-16 8:25 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 23:48 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 0:03 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 0:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 0:21 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-23 11:24 ` Balbir Singh
2010-02-23 21:12 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 9/9 v2] oom: remove unnecessary code and cleanup David Rientjes
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=20100216075330.GJ5723@laptop \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=l.lunak@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/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).