linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/3] mm, oom: pass an oom order of -1 when triggered by sysrq

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, 30 Jun 2015 15:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] mm, oom: pass an oom order of -1 when triggered by
 sysrq

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:

> > The force_kill member of struct oom_context isn't needed if an order of
> > -1 is used instead.
> 
> But this doesn't make much sense to me. It is not like we would _have_
> to spare few bytes here. The meaning of force_kill is clear while order
> with a weird value is a hack. It is harder to follow without any good
> reason.
> 

To me, this is the same as treating order == -1 as special in 
struct compact_control meaning that it was triggered from the command line 
and we really want to fully compact memory.  It seems to have a nice 
symmetry.
--
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/