[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200905120128.16780.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 01:28:15 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: rientjes@...gle.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, pavel@....cz,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org, mel@....ul.ie
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 00:44:36 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>
> > Which means this patch:
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124165031723627 (it also is my favourite
> > one).
>
> ho hum, I could live with that ;)
>
> Would it make sense to turn it into something more general? Instead of
> "tasks_frozen/processes_are_frozen()", present it as
> "oom_killer_disabled/oom_killer_is_disabled()"?
>
> That would invite other subsystems to use it, if they want to. Which
> might well be a bad thing on their behalf, hard to say..
I chose the names this way because the variable is defined in the freezer code.
Alternatively, I can define one in page_alloc.c, add [disable|enable]_oom_killer()
for manipulating it and call them from the freezer code. Do you think that
would be better?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists