From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>, mhocko@kernel.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@suse.de,
rientjes@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 12:03:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01a495b8-36f6-28f5-5a55-089f4860747d@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201612061938.DDD73970.QFHOFJStFOLVOM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On 12/06/2016 11:38 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>
>> So we are somewhere in the middle between pre-mature and pointless
>> system disruption (GFP_NOFS with a lots of metadata or lowmem request)
>> where the OOM killer even might not help and potential lockup which is
>> inevitable with the current design. Dunno about you but I would rather
>> go with the first option. To be honest I really fail to understand your
>> line of argumentation. We have this
>> do {
>> cond_resched();
>> } while (!(page = alloc_page(GFP_NOFS)));
>> vs.
>> page = alloc_page(GFP_NOFS | __GFP_NOFAIL);
>>
>> the first one doesn't invoke OOM killer while the later does. This
>> discrepancy just cannot make any sense... The same is true for
>>
>> alloc_page(GFP_DMA) vs alloc_page(GFP_DMA|__GFP_NOFAIL)
>>
>> Now we can discuss whether it is a _good_ idea to not invoke OOM killer
>> for those exceptions but whatever we do __GFP_NOFAIL is not a way to
>> give such a subtle side effect. Or do you disagree even with that?
>
> "[PATCH 1/2] mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator slowpath"
> silently changes __GFP_NOFAIL vs. __GFP_NORETRY priority.
I guess that wasn't intended?
> Currently, __GFP_NORETRY is stronger than __GFP_NOFAIL; __GFP_NOFAIL
> allocation requests fail without invoking the OOM killer when both
> __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOFAIL are given.
>
> With [PATCH 1/2], __GFP_NOFAIL becomes stronger than __GFP_NORETRY;
> __GFP_NOFAIL allocation requests will loop forever without invoking
> the OOM killer when both __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOFAIL are given.
Does such combination of flag make sense? Should we warn about it, or
even silently remove __GFP_NORETRY in such case?
> Those callers which prefer lockup over panic can specify both
> __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOFAIL.
What lockup exactly, if __GFP_NORETRY did lead to fail?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-06 11:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-01 15:25 [PATCH 0/2] GFP_NOFAIL cleanups Michal Hocko
2016-12-01 15:25 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator slowpath Michal Hocko
2016-12-01 15:25 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Michal Hocko
2016-12-02 7:23 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-12-05 13:45 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-05 14:10 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-06 8:27 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-06 10:38 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-06 11:03 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2016-12-06 19:25 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-06 19:22 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-08 12:53 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-08 13:47 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-11 11:23 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-11 13:53 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-12 8:52 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-12 8:48 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-14 10:34 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 7:39 OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58 ` OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 17:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-12-16 22:12 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-17 11:17 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-18 16:37 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=01a495b8-36f6-28f5-5a55-089f4860747d@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox