| 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: <20140617154527.GC7331@cmpxchg.org> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists