| 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: <20151128100856.GA7963@dhcp22.suse.cz> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 11:08:56 +0100 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tree wide: get rid of __GFP_REPEAT for order-0 allocations part I On Fri 27-11-15 10:38:07, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > I am not sure whether we found any conclusion here. Are there any strong > arguments against patch 1? I think that should be relatively > non-controversial. What about patch 2? I think it should be ok as well > as we are basically removing the flag which has never had any effect. > > I would like to proceed with this further by going through remaining users. > Most of them depend on a variable size and I am not familiar with the > code so I will talk to maintainer to find out reasoning behind using the > flag. Once we have reasonable number of them I would like to go on and > rename the flag to __GFP_BEST_AFFORD and make it independent on the ble, __GFP_BEST_EFFORT I meant of course... > order. It would still trigger OOM killer where applicable but wouldn't > retry endlessly. > > Does this sound like a reasonable plan? -- 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