Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752152AbZKJHn2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:43:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751235AbZKJHn2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:43:28 -0500 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:53931 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750880AbZKJHn1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:43:27 -0500 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:40:55 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , cl@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with nodemask v2 Message-Id: <20091110164055.a1b44a4b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20091110163419.361E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20091110162121.361B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091110162445.c6db7521.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091110163419.361E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1165 Lines: 34 On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:39:02 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > + > > > > + /* Check this allocation failure is caused by cpuset's wall function */ > > > > + for_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, zonelist, > > > > + high_zoneidx, nodemask) > > > > + if (!cpuset_zone_allowed_softwall(zone, gfp_mask)) > > > > return CONSTRAINT_CPUSET; > > > > > > If cpuset and MPOL_BIND are both used, Probably CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY is > > > better choice. > > > > No. this memory allocation is failed by limitation of cpuset's alloc mask. > > Not from mempolicy. > > But CONSTRAINT_CPUSET doesn't help to free necessary node memory. It isn't > your fault. original code is wrong too. but I hope we should fix it. > Hmm, maybe fair enough. My 3rd version will use "kill always current(CONSTRAINT_MEMPOLICY does this) if it uses mempolicy" logic. Objections ? Thanks, -Kame -- 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/