On 10/07/2015 12:43 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
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?
I don't know, I don't even have direct evidence of TIF_MEMDIE being set,
but OOMs were happening all over the place, and I haven't found another
reason why the allocation would not be too-small-to-fail otherwise.
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201508272249.hdh81838.ftqolmffovs...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
Where was the BUG_ON(!page) ? Maybe it is a candidate for adding __GFP_NOFAIL.
Yes, I suggested so:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=144181523115244&w=2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
