From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:09:22 -0700 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [patch 6/4] oom: pass null to kfree if zonelist is not cleared Message-Id: <20070919100922.16be90c0.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: References: <871b7a4fd566de081120.1187786931@v2.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: David Rientjes Cc: clameter@sgi.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, andrea@suse.de, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: David wrote: > Why would it be constrained by the cpuset policy if there is no > __GFP_HARDWALL? Er eh ... because it is ;) With or without GFP_HARDWALL, allocations are constrained by cpuset policy. It's just a different policy (the nearest ancestor cpuset marked mem_exclusive) without GFP_HARDWALL, rather than the current cpuset. Cpuset constraints are ignored if in_interrupt, GFP_ATOMIC or the thread flag TIF_MEMDIE is set. Grep for "GFP_HARDWALL" and read its comments (mostly in kernel/cpuset.c) and associated code to see how these flags impact cpuset placement policy. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 -- 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: email@kvack.org