From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f199.google.com (mail-wr0-f199.google.com [209.85.128.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57ABD6B03A2 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:47:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-f199.google.com with SMTP id w37so30375689wrc.2 for ; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 07:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t25si11089389wra.239.2017.03.02.07.47.46 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Mar 2017 07:47:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:47:44 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: mm allocation failure and hang when running xfstests generic/269 on xfs Message-ID: <20170302154744.GN1404@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170302124909.GE1404@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170302130009.GC3213@bfoster.bfoster> <20170302132755.GG1404@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170302134157.GD3213@bfoster.bfoster> <20170302135001.GI1404@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170302142315.GE3213@bfoster.bfoster> <20170302143441.GL1404@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170302145131.GF3213@bfoster.bfoster> <20170302151411.GM1404@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170302153002.GG3213@bfoster.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170302153002.GG3213@bfoster.bfoster> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Brian Foster Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Tetsuo Handa , Xiong Zhou , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 02-03-17 10:30:02, Brian Foster wrote: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 04:14:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > I am not objecting to adding fatal_signal_pending as well I just thought > > that from the logic POV breaking after reaching the minimum size is just > > the right thing to do. We can optimize further by checking > > fatal_signal_pending and reducing retries when we know it doesn't make > > much sense but that should be done on top as an optimization IMHO. > > > > I don't think of it as an optimization to not invoke calls (a > non-deterministic number of times) that we know are going to fail, but the point is that vmalloc failure modes are an implementation detail which might change in the future. The fix should be really independent on the current implementation that is why I think the fatal_signal_pending is just an optimization. > ultimately I don't care too much how it's framed or if it's done in > separate patches or whatnot. As long as they are posted at the same > time. ;) Done -- 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