lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch -mmotm] mm: invoke oom killer for __GFP_NOFAIL
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 06:37:30PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, May 12 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 02:42:02PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 11 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 9 May 2009 15:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The oom killer must be invoked regardless of the order if the allocation
> > > > > is __GFP_NOFAIL, otherwise it will loop forever when reclaim fails to
> > > > > free some memory.
> > > >
> > > > Sigh. We're supposed to be deleting __GFP_NOFAIL. I added it as a way
> > > > of easily finding lame error-handling-challenged callers which need to
> > > > be fixed up. So of course we went and added lots more callers.
> > > >
> > > > y:/usr/src/linux-2.6.30-rc5> grep -rl GFP_NOFAIL .
> > > > ./fs/bio-integrity.c
> >
> > This is no good either, it seems to be in the bio submission path.
> >
> > It needs a mempool or something.
>
> mempool cannot help here, since the allocation is tied to the process
> (and IO) life time.

Oh, I was talking about bio-integrity.c...


> > It has a dead code "fallback" that returns an error, but I suspect that's
> > not really acceptable.
>
> It's not that difficult to handle an error there, it just means that we
> lose any process association with that request. It's mostly making sure
> that all the bits and pieces deal with that correctly, but it should not
> be very hard.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-12 18:53    [W:0.099 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site