Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1562056 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 0/3 -v3] GFP_NOFAIL cleanups

Started byMichal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
First post2017-01-18 19:50 +0100
Last post2017-01-18 19:50 +0100
Articles 1 — 1 participant

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH 0/3 -v3] GFP_NOFAIL cleanups Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-01-18 19:50 +0100

#1562056 — Re: [PATCH 0/3 -v3] GFP_NOFAIL cleanups

FromMichal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Date2017-01-18 19:50 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3 -v3] GFP_NOFAIL cleanups
Message-ID<t13t0-7Dp-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Tue 20-12-16 14:49:01, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> This has been posted [1] initially to later be reduced to a single patch
> [2].  Johannes then suggested [3] to split up the second patch and make
> the access to memory reserves by __GF_NOFAIL requests which do not
> invoke the oom killer a separate change. This is patch 3 now.
> 
> Tetsuo has noticed [4] that recent changes have changed GFP_NOFAIL
> semantic for costly order requests. I believe that the primary reason
> why this happened is that our GFP_NOFAIL checks are too scattered
> and it is really easy to forget about adding one. That's why I am
> proposing patch 1 which consolidates all the nofail handling at a single
> place. This should help to make this code better maintainable.
> 
> Patch 2 on top is a further attempt to make GFP_NOFAIL semantic less
> surprising. As things stand currently GFP_NOFAIL overrides the oom killer
> prevention code which is both subtle and not really needed. The patch 2
> has more details about issues this might cause. We have also seen
> a report where __GFP_NOFAIL|GFP_NOFS requests cause the oom killer which
> is premature.
> 
> Patch 3 is an attempt to reduce chances of GFP_NOFAIL requests being
> preempted by other memory consumers by giving them access to memory
> reserves.
> 
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161123064925.9716-1-mhocko@kernel.org
> [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161214150706.27412-1-mhocko@kernel.org
> [3] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161216173151.GA23182@cmpxchg.org
> [4] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1479387004-5998-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp

Friendly ping on this.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web