From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B2D828F3 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:21:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id f206so280017427wmf.0 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:21:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v2si19141108wjz.107.2016.01.11.09.21.01 for (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:21:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:20:58 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: do not loop !__GFP_FS allocation if the OOM killer is disabled. Message-ID: <20160111172058.GK27317@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1452488836-6772-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20160111170047.GB32132@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160111170047.GB32132@cmpxchg.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Tetsuo Handa , rientjes@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org On Mon 11-01-16 12:00:47, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:07:16PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > After the OOM killer is disabled during suspend operation, > > any !__GFP_NOFAIL && __GFP_FS allocations are forced to fail. > > Thus, any !__GFP_NOFAIL && !__GFP_FS allocations should be > > forced to fail as well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa > > Why? We had to acknowledge that !__GFP_FS allocations can not fail > even when they can't invoke the OOM killer. They are NOFAIL. Just like > an explicit __GFP_NOFAIL they should trigger a warning when they occur > after the OOM killer has been disabled and then keep looping. They are more like GFP_KERNEL than GFP_NOFAIL IMO because unlike GFP_NOFAIL they are already allowed to fail due to fatal_signals_pending and this has been the case for a really long time. Even semantically they are basically GFP_KERNEL with FS recursion protection in majority cases. And I believe that we should allow them to fail long term after some FS (btrfs at least) catch up and start handling failures properly. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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