Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:29:15 +0800 | Subject | Re: readahead and oom | From | Dave Young <> |
| |
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 02:07:17PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 01:49:25PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> When memory pressure is high, readahead could cause oom killing. >> >>> IMHO we should stop readaheading under such circumstances。If it's true >> >>> how to fix it? >> >> >> >> Good question. Before OOM there will be readahead thrashings, which >> >> can be addressed by this patch: >> >> >> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/2/229 >> > >> > Hi, I'm not clear about the patch, could be regard as below cases? >> > 1) readahead alloc fail due to low memory such as other large allocation >> >> For example vm balloon allocate lots of memory, then readahead could >> fail immediately and then oom > > If true, that would be the problem of vm balloon. It's not good to > consume lots of memory all of a sudden, which will likely impact lots > of kernel subsystems. > > btw readahead page allocations are completely optional. They are OK to > fail and in theory shall not trigger OOM on themselves. We may > consider passing __GFP_NORETRY for readahead page allocations.
Good idea, care to submit a patch?
-- Regards dave -- 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/
| |