Re: [patch 08/11 -mmotm] oom: invoke oom killer for __GFP_NOFAIL

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> On Mon, 11 May 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro 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.
> > 
> > This is intensional behavior. plus you change very widely caller bahavior.
> > if you don't have good test program, I nak this.
> > 
> 
> What exactly are you objecting to?  You don't want the oom killer called 
> for a __GFP_NOFAIL allocation above PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER that could not 
> reclaim any memory and would prefer that it loop endlessly in the page 
> allocator?  What's the purpose of that if the oom killer could free a very 
> large memory hogging task?

My point is, if we change gfp-flags meaning, we should change
unintentional affected caller.

Do you oppose this?



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/