On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 07:09:25PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > > [ trimming CCs ] > > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 06:47:10PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure I agree with that. Generally speaking it seems like the > > > > right > > > > thing to do, if you want to avoid filling logs with warnings, but this > > > > is the > > > > sort of error that is going to be accompanied by severe service > > > > interruption. > > > > I'd rather see a reason behind that in the logs, than just have it occur > > > > silently. > > > > > > Its not silent -- the setsockopt call will fail and userspace should > > > display an error. > > > > > Thats not true. If the OOM succedes in freeing enough memory to fulfill the > > request the setsockopt may complete without error, you're just left with a > > killed process...somewhere. Thats seems a bit dodgy to me >
__GFP_NOWARN is about allocation failures only and it won't disable OOM kill messages. oom_kill_process() has no idea on GFP_NOWARN when doing the logging. > We should prevent OOM killer from running in first place (GFP_NORETRY should > work). Oh. Really?
