| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1307649162.9218.41.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:52:42 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>, vnagarnaik@...gle.com, mingo@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com, mrubin@...gle.com, dhsharp@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] trace: Set __GFP_NORETRY flag for ring buffer allocating process On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 12:42 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > It would only happen if there was an antagonist that stole the reclaimed > pages before your __GFP_NORETRY allocation could allocate them, resulting > in the system being oom again as it was before reclaim occurred. Without > __GFP_NORETRY, we'd automatically retry these allocations in a loop until > we found the memory since they are order-0, so the only side effect would > be an increased latency in the allocation. I think if we still end up oom > after reclaiming memory that was allocated by another thread that we > probably don't want to be expanding the ring buffer and, thus, I see no > problem with just failing. Agreed, which is why I already pushed the patch. -- Steve -- 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