On Wednesday 06 May 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 6 May 2009 01:20:34 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wednesday 06 May 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Wed, 6 May 2009 00:19:35 +0200 > > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > + && !processes_are_frozen()) { > > > > > > if (!try_set_zone_oom(zonelist, gfp_mask)) { > > > > > > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1); > > > > > > goto restart; > > > > > > > > > > Cool, that looks like the semantics of __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL without > > > > > requiring > > > > > a new gfp flag. Thanks. > > > > > > > > Well, you're welcome. > > > > > > > > BTW, I think that Andrew was actually right when he asked if I checked > > > > whether > > > > the existing __GFP_NORETRY would work as-is for __GFP_FS set and > > > > __GFP_NORETRY unset. Namely, in that case we never reach the code > > > > before > > > > nopage: that checks __GFP_NORETRY, do we? > > > > > > > > So I think we shouldn't modify the 'else if' condition above and check > > > > for > > > > !processes_are_frozen() at the beginning of the block below. > > > > > > Confused. > > > > > > I'm suspecting that hibernation can allocate its pages with > > > __GFP_FS|__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_NOWARN, and the page allocator > > > will dtrt: no oom-killings. > > > > > > In which case, processes_are_frozen() is not needed at all? > > > > __GFP_NORETRY alone causes it to fail relatively quickly, but I'll try with > > the combination. > > OK. __GFP_WAIT is the big hammer.
Unfortunately it fails too quickly with the combination as well, so it looks like we can't use __GFP_NORETRY during hibernation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
