Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?

[Andi Kleen]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:38:30PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > I was thinking that your __GFP_NOOOM was a thinko.  How would it differ
> > > from __GFP_NORETRY?
> > 
> > __GFP_NORETRY seems to skip at least one retry pass as far as I can see.
> > __GFP_NOOOM wouldn't. But perhaps the additional pass only makes sense
> > with oom killing? I'm not sure - that is why i was asking.
> > 
> 
> Oh, OK.  That final get_page_from_freelist() is allegedly to see if a
> parallel oom-killing freed some pages - we already know that
> try_to_free_pages() didn't work.
> 
> I rather doubt that it'll make any difference.

I switched over the x86-64 IOMMU code and floppy code to use
__GFP_NORETRY now.

But perhaps it would be better to rename it to __GFP_NOOOM
because I think that would express its meaning better.

-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/