linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:29:47 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	mhocko@...nel.org, js1304@...il.com
Cc:	iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	hughd@...gle.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...e.de, rientjes@...gle.com,
	hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4

Michal Hocko wrote:
> Sure we can be more intelligent and reset the counter if the
> feedback from compaction is optimistic and we are making some
> progress. This would be less hackish and the XXX comment points into
> that direction. For now I would like this to catch most loads reasonably
> and build better heuristics on top. I would like to do as much as
> possible to close the obvious regressions but I guess we have to expect
> there will be cases where the OOM fires and hasn't before and vice
> versa.

Aren't you forgetting that some people use panic_on_oom > 0 which means that
premature OOM killer invocation is fatal for them?