Re: readahead and oom

[Minchan Kim]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Minchan,
>
>> > +static inline struct page *page_cache_alloc_cold_noretry(struct address_space *x)
>> > +{
>> > + Â Â Â return __page_cache_alloc(mapping_gfp_mask(x)|__GFP_COLD|__GFP_NORETRY);
>>
>> It makes sense to me but it could make a noise about page allocation
>> failure. I think it's not desirable.
>> How about adding __GFP_NOWARAN?
>
> Yeah it makes sense. Here is the new version.
>
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
> ---
> Subject: readahead: readahead page allocations is OK to fail
> Date: Tue Apr 26 14:29:40 CST 2011
>
> Pass __GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_NOWARN for readahead page allocations.
>
> readahead page allocations are completely optional. They are OK to
> fail and in particular shall not trigger OOM on themselves.
>
> Reported-by: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/