Re: [patch 04/12] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges

[Michal Hocko]

On Tue 17-06-14 11:45:27, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:53:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 16-06-14 15:54:24, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > There is no reason why oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges should
> > > try to reclaim only once when every other charge tries several times
> > > before giving up.  Make them all retry the same number of times.
> > 
> > OK, this makes sense for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL but does it make
> > sense to do additional reclaim for tasks with fatal_signal_pending?
> > 
> > It is little bit unexpected, because we bypass if the condition happens
> > before the reclaim but then we ignore it.
> 
> "mm: memcontrol: rearrange charging fast path", moves the pending
> signal check inside the retry block, right before reclaim.

Right you are.

Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/