[PATCH 1/3] kexec: don't invoke OOM-killer for control page allocation

Baoquan He bhe at redhat.com
Mon Apr 18 03:12:14 PDT 2016

On 04/18/16 at 09:39am, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 01:32:53PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 04/14/16 at 09:00pm, Russell King wrote:
> > > If we are unable to find a suitable page when allocating the control
> > > page, do not invoke the OOM-killer: killing processes probably isn't
> > > going to help.
> > 
> > Originally kexec was made to reboot to test kernel quickly. If 1st
> > kernel is palyed and hurted in a bad state and developer want to discard
> > it and take a quick reboot, why don't we have a best try to make a
> > successful kexec load?
> And if it kills off every process trying to get a suitable page,
> which then means you can't do anything other than power cycle,
> that's okay?

Yes, I agree on that it's non-sense if every process is killed. But will
each kexec load which need OOM-killer go that far? And there's only one
page (if 32 bit) or 2 pages (if 64 bit) for control page, it may not
need kill that many processes to pick one.

> -- 
> RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
> according to speedtest.net.
> _______________________________________________
> kexec mailing list
> kexec at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

More information about the kexec mailing list