Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?

[Tetsuo Handa]

Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 5.10.2015 16:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > So I can see basically only few ways out of this deadlock situation.
> > Either we face the reality and allow small allocations (withtout
> > __GFP_NOFAIL) to fail after all attempts to reclaim memory have failed
> > (so after even OOM killer hasn't made any progress).
> 
> Note that small allocations already *can* fail if they are done in the context
> of a task selected as OOM victim (i.e. TIF_MEMDIE). And yeah I've seen a case
> when they failed in a code that "handled" the allocation failure with a
> BUG_ON(!page).
> 
Did You hit a race described below?
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201508272249.HDH81838.FtQOLMFFOVSJOH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Where was the BUG_ON(!page) ? Maybe it is a candidate for adding __GFP_NOFAIL.
--
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/