From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6305D6B004D for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:43:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.76]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id nAA7hWfP012699 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:43:32 +0900 Received: from smail (m6 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C1245DE52 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:43:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B3A45DE50 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:43:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05BD1DB8041 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:43:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.107]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4939D1DB8038 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:43:31 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:40:55 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with nodemask v2 Message-Id: <20091110164055.a1b44a4b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20091110163419.361E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20091110162121.361B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091110162445.c6db7521.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091110163419.361E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , cl@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com List-ID: On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:39:02 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > + > > > > + /* 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. > Hmm, maybe fair enough. My 3rd version will use "kill always current(CONSTRAINT_MEMPOLICY does this) if it uses mempolicy" logic. Objections ? Thanks, -Kame -- 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