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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox