Re: [PATCH v5 06/14] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure

From: Glauber Costa
Date: Mon Oct 22 2012 - 08:34:27 EST

On 10/20/2012 12:34 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>>> What about gfp & __GFP_FS?
>>>> Do you intend to prevent or allow OOM under that flag? I personally
>>>> think that anything that accepts to be OOM-killed should have GFP_WAIT
>>>> set, so that ought to be enough.
>>> The oom killer in the page allocator cannot trigger without __GFP_FS
>>> because direct reclaim has little chance of being very successful and
>>> thus we end up needlessly killing processes, and that tends to happen
>>> quite a bit if we dont check for it. Seems like this would also happen
>>> with memcg if mem_cgroup_reclaim() has a large probability of failing?
>> I can indeed see tests for GFP_FS in some key locations in mm/ before
>> calling the OOM Killer.
>> Should I test for GFP_IO as well?
> It's not really necessary, if __GFP_IO isn't set then it wouldn't make
> sense for __GFP_FS to be set.
>> If the idea is preventing OOM to
>> trigger for allocations that can write their pages back, how would you
>> feel about the following test:
>> may_oom = (gfp & GFP_KERNEL) && !(gfp & __GFP_NORETRY) ?
> I would simply copy the logic from the page allocator and only trigger oom
> for __GFP_FS and !__GFP_NORETRY.

That seems reasonable to me. Michal ?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at