From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753701AbcBZHzZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 02:55:25 -0500
Received: from mail113-249.mail.alibaba.com ([205.204.113.249]:45436 "EHLO
	us-alimail-mta2.hst.scl.en.alidc.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752160AbcBZHzY (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 02:55:24 -0500
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R111e4;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01l10410;MF=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=12;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_----4YM39N-_1456473259;
Reply-To: "Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>
From: "Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>
To: "'Hugh Dickins'" <hughd@google.com>, "'Michal Hocko'" <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "'Linus Torvalds'" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "'Johannes Weiner'" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        "'Mel Gorman'" <mgorman@suse.de>,
        "'David Rientjes'" <rientjes@google.com>,
        "'Tetsuo Handa'" <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        "'KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki'" <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>, "'LKML'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "'Sergey Senozhatsky'" <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
References: <1450203586-10959-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <20160203132718.GI6757@dhcp22.suse.cz> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1602241832160.15564@eggly.anvils> <20160225092315.GD17573@dhcp22.suse.cz> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1602252219020.9793@eggly.anvils>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1602252219020.9793@eggly.anvils>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:54:19 +0800
Message-ID: <009a01d1706a$e666dc00$b3349400$@alibaba-inc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQLrn4RotpjS2Y3s/D1LpIleWH8/2gFR+O4RAVq04vYCd5T5zwHUwUkynNHGKlA=
Content-Language: zh-cn
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> 
> It didn't really help, I'm afraid: it reduces the actual number of OOM
> kills which occur before the job is terminated, but doesn't stop the
> job from being terminated very soon.
> 
> I also tried Hillf's patch (separately) too, but as you expected,
> it didn't seem to make any difference.
> 
Perhaps non-costly means NOFAIL as shown by folding the two
patches into one. Can it make any sense?

thanks
Hillf
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c	Thu Feb 25 15:43:18 2016
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c	Fri Feb 26 15:18:55 2016
@@ -3113,6 +3113,8 @@ should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, uns
 	struct zone *zone;
 	struct zoneref *z;
 
+	if (order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
+		return true;
 	/*
 	 * Make sure we converge to OOM if we cannot make any progress
 	 * several times in the row.
--