linux-kernel - Re: [patch 04/12] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and __GFP

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:	Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:45:27 -0400
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 04/12] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and
 __GFP_NOFAIL charges

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:53:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-06-14 15:54:24, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > There is no reason why oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges should
> > try to reclaim only once when every other charge tries several times
> > before giving up.  Make them all retry the same number of times.
> 
> OK, this makes sense for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL but does it make
> sense to do additional reclaim for tasks with fatal_signal_pending?
> 
> It is little bit unexpected, because we bypass if the condition happens
> before the reclaim but then we ignore it.

"mm: memcontrol: rearrange charging fast path", moves the pending
signal check inside the retry block, right before reclaim.
--
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/