Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:38:30PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> wrote:

I was thinking that your __GFP_NOOOM was a thinko. How would it differ
from __GFP_NORETRY?

__GFP_NORETRY seems to skip at least one retry pass as far as I can see.
__GFP_NOOOM wouldn't. But perhaps the additional pass only makes sense
with oom killing? I'm not sure - that is why i was asking.


Oh, OK. That final get_page_from_freelist() is allegedly to see if a
parallel oom-killing freed some pages - we already know that
try_to_free_pages() didn't work.

I rather doubt that it'll make any difference.

I switched over the x86-64 IOMMU code and floppy code to use
__GFP_NORETRY now.

But perhaps it would be better to rename it to __GFP_NOOOM
because I think that would express its meaning better.

-Andi

-
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/