Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?

[Andrew Morton]

Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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?
> 

I was thinking that your __GFP_NOOOM was a thinko.  How would it differ
from __GFP_NORETRY?
-
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/