Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 7 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > Third time I'm going to suggest this, and I'd like a response on why it's 
> > not possible instead of being ignored.
> > 
> > All of your tasks are in D state other than kthreads, right?  That means 
> > they won't be in the oom killer (thus no zones are oom locked), so you can 
> > easily do this
> > 
> > 	struct zone *z;
> > 	for_each_populated_zone(z)
> > 		zone_set_flag(z, ZONE_OOM_LOCKED);
> > 
> > and then
> > 
> > 	for_each_populated_zone(z)
> > 		zone_clear_flag(z, ZONE_OOM_LOCKED);
> > 
> > The serialization is done with trylocks so this will never invoke the oom 
> > killer because all zones in the allocator's zonelist will be oom locked.
> > 
> > Why does this not work for you?
> 
> Well, it might work too, but why are you insisting?  How's it better than
> __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL, actually?
> 

Because I agree with Christoph's concerns about needlessly adding 
additional gfp flags; he was responding to the proposed addition of 
__GFP_PANIC which could be handled in other much simpler ways just like 
this flag can as I've shown.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/