[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: upcoming item: get_page_from_freelist
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > I'd agree with Mel's added check for TIF_MEMDIE upon returning from the
> > oom killer, but only for __GFP_NOMEMALLOC.
> NOMEMALLOC indeed should always be kept away from memalloc/memdie
> reserves. That's how it should have worked when I added it (but
> I may have forgotten TIF_MEMDIE, I can't remember).

Yeah, so if test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) and __GFP_NOMEMALLOC, then it
makes sense to return NULL immediately following the call to the oom
killer for !__GFP_NOFAIL since retrying the allocation is pointless
(reclaim failed already and TIF_MEMDIE doesn't help us on the next
attempt) at that time.

> > The oom killer currently is a no-op if any eligible task has TIF_MEMDIE,
> > so this would require adding an oom killer timeout so that if a task fails
> > to exit after a predefined period, TIF_MEMDIE is cleared and the task is
> > marked to no longer be selected (which would require an addition to
> > task_struct) although it may have already completely depleted memory
> > reserves.
> It wouldn't have to be a timeout, it could be a call back to the
> oom killer.

Calling the oom killer won't do anything since it will not kill another
task while another has TIF_MEMDIE to protect those memory reserves and
give the oom killed task a chance to exit.

Panicking when a thread with TIF_MEMDIE set cannot find any memory and the
allocation is __GFP_NOFAIL makes sense, but only for order 0.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-30 10:43    [W:0.086 / U:4.892 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site