Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4

[Hillf Danton]

> >
> > Can you please schedule a run for the diff attached, in which
> > non-expensive allocators are allowed to burn more CPU cycles.
> 
> I do not think your patch will help. As you can see, both OOMs were for
> order-2 and there simply are no order-2+ free blocks usable for the
> allocation request so the watermark check will fail for all eligible
> zones and no_progress_loops is simply ignored. This is what I've tried
> to address by patch I have just posted as a reply to Hugh's email
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160225092315.GD17573@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
Hm, Mr. Swap can tell us more.

Hillf