| 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: <20150315121317.GA30685@dhcp22.suse.cz> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:13:17 +0100 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, david@...morbit.com, mgorman@...e.de, riel@...hat.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Allow small allocations to fail On Sun 15-03-15 14:43:37, Tetsuo Handa wrote: [...] > If you want to count only those retries which involved OOM killer, you need > to do like > > - nr_retries++; > + if (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) > + nr_retries++; > > in this patch. No, we shouldn't create another type of hidden NOFAIL allocation like this. I understand that the wording of the changelog might be confusing, though. It says: "This implementation counts only those retries which involved OOM killer because we do not want to be too eager to fail the request." Would it be more clear if I changed that to? "This implemetnation counts only those retries when the system is considered OOM because all previous reclaim attempts have resulted in no progress because we do not want to be too eager to fail the request." We definitely _want_ to fail GFP_NOFS allocations. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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