lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-28 01:44    [W:0.094 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site