Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?

[Andi Kleen]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/