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 965446B02A4 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 21:31:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o691VM2I019235 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:31:23 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADFA545DE54 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:31:22 +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 8E54945DE63 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:31:22 +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 7D0DC1DB803F for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:31:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.105]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395111DB805A for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:31:22 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: FYI: mmap_sem OOM patch In-Reply-To: <1278588200.1900.89.camel@laptop> References: <20100708200324.CD4B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <1278588200.1900.89.camel@laptop> Message-Id: <20100709102430.CD65.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:31:21 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Michel Lespinasse , linux-mm , LKML , Divyesh Shah , Ingo Molnar List-ID: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:06 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > [ small note on that we really should kill __GFP_NOFAIL, its utter > > > deadlock potential ] > > > > I disagree. __GFP_NOFAIL mean this allocation failure can makes really > > dangerous result. Instead, OOM-Killer should try to kill next process. > > I think. > > Say _what_?! you think NOFAIL is a sane thing? insane obviously ;) but as far as my experience, some embedded system prefer to use NOFAIL. So, I don't like to make big hammer crash. NOFAIL killing need long year rather than you expected, I guess. > Pretty much everybody has > been agreeing for years that the thing should die. I'm not against this at all. but until it die, it should works correctly. -- 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