Messages in this thread | | | Date | 28 Feb 2006 01:41:15 +0100 | Date | Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:41:15 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: OOM-killer too aggressive? |
| |
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |