| To: | Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 0/6] Handle bio_alloc failure |
| From: | Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:46:04 -0700 |
| Cc: | knikanth@xxxxxxx, jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx, neilb@xxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx, shaggy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20090414181632.GI955@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <200904141636.26557.knikanth@xxxxxxxxxx> <20090414111838.GG5178@xxxxxxxxx> <200904141711.20378.knikanth@xxxxxxx> <20090414181632.GI955@xxxxxxx> |
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:16:32 -0400 Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > In include/linux/page_alloc.h, > __GFP_NOFAIL is documented as "will never fail", but it says > absolutely nothing about __GFP_WAIT. In the present implementation, a __GFP_WAIT allocation for order <=3 will only fail if the caller was oom-killed. Which raises the question "what happens when a mempool_alloc() caller gets oom-killed?". Seems that it will loop around in mempool_alloc() doing weak attempts to allocate memory, not doing direct reclaim while waiting for someone else to free something up. hm. I guess it'll recover eventually. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 0/6] Handle bio_alloc failure, Jens Axboe |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH 0/7] Cleanup code that think bio_alloc with __GFP_WAIT can fail, Nikanth Karthikesan |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 0/6] Handle bio_alloc failure, Jens Axboe |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 0/6] Handle bio_alloc failure, Nick Piggin |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |