From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 25BCC6B004D for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:39:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id nAA7d385019724 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:39:03 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E5B45DE52 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:39:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5960145DE51 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:39:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A771DB803F for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:39:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.106]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002711DB803C for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:39:03 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with nodemask v2 In-Reply-To: <20091110162445.c6db7521.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20091110162121.361B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091110162445.c6db7521.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-Id: <20091110163419.361E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:39:02 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , cl@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com List-ID: > > > + > > > + /* Check this allocation failure is caused by cpuset's wall function */ > > > + for_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, zonelist, > > > + high_zoneidx, nodemask) > > > + if (!cpuset_zone_allowed_softwall(zone, gfp_mask)) > > > return CONSTRAINT_CPUSET; > > > > If cpuset and MPOL_BIND are both used, Probably CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY is > > better choice. > > No. this memory allocation is failed by limitation of cpuset's alloc mask. > Not from mempolicy. But CONSTRAINT_CPUSET doesn't help to free necessary node memory. It isn't your fault. original code is wrong too. but I hope we should fix it. -- 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