[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1507081624440.16585@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2 2/3] mm, oom: organize oom context into struct
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 01-07-15 14:37:14, David Rientjes wrote:
> > The force_kill member of struct oom_control isn't needed if an order of
> > -1 is used instead. This is the same as order == -1 in
> > struct compact_control which requires full memory compaction.
> >
> > This patch introduces no functional change.
>
> But it obscures the code and I really dislike this change as pointed out
> previously.
>
The oom killer is often called at the end of a very lengthy stack since
memory allocation itself can be called deep in the stack. Thus, reducing
the amount of memory, even for a small lil bool, is helpful. This is
especially true when other such structs, struct compact_control, does the
exact same thing by using order == -1 to mean explicit compaction.
I'm personally tired of fixing stack overflows and you're arguing against
"obscurity" that even occurs in other parts of the mm code.
oc->force_kill has no reason to exist, and thus it's removed in this patch
and for good reason.
--
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