Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751768AbWB0WaW (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:30:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751769AbWB0WaW (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:30:22 -0500 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:39568 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751768AbWB0WaV (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:30:21 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:30:02 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter To: Andi Kleen cc: Andrew Morton , largret@gmail.com, 76306.1226@compuserve.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@suse.de Subject: Re: OOM-killer too aggressive? In-Reply-To: <20060226235142.GB91959@muc.de> Message-ID: References: <200602260938_MC3-1-B94B-EE2B@compuserve.com> <20060226102152.69728696.akpm@osdl.org> <1140988015.5178.15.camel@shogun.daga.dyndns.org> <20060226133140.4cf05ea5.akpm@osdl.org> <20060226235142.GB91959@muc.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 600 Lines: 14 On Sun, 27 Feb 2006, Andi Kleen wrote: > Thinking about this more I think we need a __GFP_NOOOM for other > purposes too. e.g. the x86-64 IOMMU code tries to do similar > fallbacks and I suspect it will be hit by the OOM killer too. Isnt this also a constrained allocation? We could expand the check to also catch these types of restrictions and fail. - 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/