Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Mar 2016 18:32:30 +0900 | From | Sergey Senozhatsky <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more |
| |
On (03/08/16 10:24), Vlastimil Babka wrote: [..] > > @@ -3294,6 +3289,18 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, > > did_some_progress > 0, no_progress_loops)) > > goto retry; > > > > + /* > > + * !costly allocations are really important and we have to make sure > > + * the compaction wasn't deferred or didn't bail out early due to locks > > + * contention before we go OOM. > > + */ > > + if (order && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) { > > + if (compact_result <= COMPACT_CONTINUE) > > Same here. > I was going to say that this didn't have effect on Sergey's test, but > turns out it did :)
I'm sorry, my test is not correct. I have disabled compaction last weeked on purpose - to provoke more OOM-kills and OOM conditions for reworked printk() patch set testing (http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=145734549308803); and I forgot to re-enable it.
-ss
| |