| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:48:42 +0900 From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>, Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch -mmotm] mm: invoke oom killer for __GFP_NOFAIL On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:32 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 May 2009, Minchan Kim wrote: > >> But this patch increases the probability of innocent task killing. >> Is GFP_NOFAIL's early bailout more important than killing of innocent task ? >> > > __GFP_NOFAIL's bailout is, by definition, a bug in the page allocator and > this patch fixes it. > What I mean is If fortunately other process have a lot of memory is exited while looping, __GFP_NOFAIL can return. I have no objection about your patch. Just, I have a concern of killing innocent task. As Mel and Andrew pointed out, fundamentally, __GFOP_NOFAIL and high-order allocation itself is bad code. Okay. we have to insert WARN_ON properly. Thanks for good contribution. :) -- Kinds regards, Minchan Kim -- 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