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? 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. -- 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/
