Date: 28 Feb 2006 01:41:15 +0100
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:41:15 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, largret@gmail.com,
       76306.1226@compuserve.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@suse.de
Subject: Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
Message-ID: <20060228004115.GA37362@muc.de>
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> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602271429270.12204@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602271429270.12204@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 881
Lines: 21

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:30:02PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.

No, it uses the full fallback zone list of the target node, not a custom
one. Would be hard to detect without a flag.

Maybe __GFP_NORETRY is actually good enough for this purpose. Opinions?

-Andi
-
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/