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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 20:53:36 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org> To: Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@...rdevices.ru>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "ngupta@...are.org" <ngupta@...are.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Aleksey Romanov <AVRomanov@...rdevices.ru> Subject: Re: ext2/zram issue [was: Linux 5.19] Hi, On (22/08/09 10:20), Dmitry Rokosov wrote: > I think oom-kill is an inevitable escape from low memory situation if we > don't solve original problem with high memory consumption in the user > setup. Reclaim-based zram slow path just delays oom if memory eating > root cause is not resolved. > > I totally agree with you that all patches which have visible user > degradations should be reverted, but maybe this is more user setup > problem, what do you think? I'd go with the revert. Jiri, are you going to send the revert patch or shall I handle it? > If you make the decision to revert slow path removal patch, I would > prefer to review the original patch with unneeded code removal again > if you don't mind: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20220422115959.3313-1-avromanov@sberdevices.ru/ Sure, we can return to it after the merge window.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists