Re: [PATCH v2] trace: Set __GFP_NORETRY flag for ring bufferallocating process

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 12:42 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:

> It would only happen if there was an antagonist that stole the reclaimed 
> pages before your __GFP_NORETRY allocation could allocate them, resulting 
> in the system being oom again as it was before reclaim occurred.  Without 
> __GFP_NORETRY, we'd automatically retry these allocations in a loop until 
> we found the memory since they are order-0, so the only side effect would 
> be an increased latency in the allocation.  I think if we still end up oom 
> after reclaiming memory that was allocated by another thread that we 
> probably don't want to be expanding the ring buffer and, thus, I see no 
> problem with just failing.

Agreed, which is why I already pushed the patch.

-- Steve


--
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/