Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:17:03 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to memory reserves |
| |
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > > > index 8034909faad2..94b04c1e894a 100644 > > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > > > @@ -2766,8 +2766,13 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, > > > goto out; > > > } > > > /* Exhausted what can be done so it's blamo time */ > > > - if (out_of_memory(&oc) || WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) > > > + if (out_of_memory(&oc) || WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) { > > > *did_some_progress = 1; > > > + > > > + if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) > > > + page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, order, > > > + ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS, ac); > > > + } > > > out: > > > mutex_unlock(&oom_lock); > > > return page; > > > > Well, sure, that's one way to do it, but for cpuset users, wouldn't this > > lead to a depletion of the first system zone since you've dropped > > ALLOC_CPUSET and are doing ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS in the same call? > > Are you suggesting to do? > if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) { > page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, order, > ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS|ALLOC_CPUSET, ac); > /* > * fallback to ignore cpuset if our nodes are > * depleted > */ > if (!page) > get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, order, > ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS, ac); > } > > I am not really sure this worth complication.
I'm objecting to the ability of a process that is doing a __GFP_NOFAIL allocation, which has been disallowed access from allocating on certain mems through cpusets, to cause an oom condition on those disallowed nodes, yes.
| |