Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?

> I was thinking that your __GFP_NOOOM was a thinko.  How would it differ
> from __GFP_NORETRY?

__GFP_NORETRY seems to skip at least one retry pass as far as I can see.
__GFP_NOOOM wouldn't. But perhaps the additional pass only makes sense
with oom killing? I'm not sure - that is why i was asking.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• References:
  • OOM-killer too aggressive?
    • From: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>
  • Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
    • From: Chris Largret <[email protected]>
  • Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch] i386: make bitops safe
• Next by Date: Bug in fs/reiserfs/file.c
• Previous by thread: Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
• Next by thread: Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]