Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to memory reserves

From	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to memory reserves
Date	2015-11-25 22:00 +0100
Message-ID	<qyPku-2Rv-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qyFO9-56R-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qyFO9-56R-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qyFXP-5aJ-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qyGhb-5xi-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:

> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 8034909faad2..94b04c1e894a 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2766,8 +2766,13 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>  			goto out;
>  	}
>  	/* Exhausted what can be done so it's blamo time */
> -	if (out_of_memory(&oc) || WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> +	if (out_of_memory(&oc) || WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) {
>  		*did_some_progress = 1;
> +
> +		if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)
> +			page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, order,
> +					ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS, ac);
> +	}
>  out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&oom_lock);
>  	return page;

Well, sure, that's one way to do it, but for cpuset users, wouldn't this 
lead to a depletion of the first system zone since you've dropped 
ALLOC_CPUSET and are doing ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS in the same call?  
get_page_from_freelist() shouldn't be doing any balancing over the set of 
allowed zones.  Can you justify depleting memory reserves on a zone 
outside of the set of allowed cpuset mems rather than trying to drop 
ALLOC_CPUSET first?
--
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/

Thread

[PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to memory reserves Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-11-25 11:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to  memory reserves David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-11-25 12:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to  memory reserves Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-11-25 12:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to  memory reserves David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-11-25 22:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: Give __GFP_NOFAIL allocations access to  memory reserves Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-11-26 10:40 +0100

csiph-web