| 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: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 10:59:32 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> To: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com> cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: split out forced OOM killer On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > > I'm not sure what the benefit of this is, and it's adding more code. > > Having multiple pathways and requirements, such as constrained_alloc(), to > > oom kill a process isn't any clearer, in my opinion. It also isn't > > intended to be optimized since the oom killer called from the page > > allocator and from sysrq aren't fastpaths. To me, this seems like only a > > source code level change and doesn't make anything more clear but rather > > adds more code and obfuscates the entry path. > > At the very least, it does make the semantics of sysrq-f much nicer for admins > (especially the bit where it ignores the panic_on_oom setting, if the admin > wants the system to panic, he'll use sysrq-c). There have been times I've had > to hit sysrq-f multiple times to get to actually kill anything, and this looks > to me like it would eliminate that rather annoying issue as well. > Are you saying there's a functional change with this patch/ -- 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