[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod5uXOQfeq9_03T5dv104tWwuukL0+vEAVhk-v1_A=skQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:32:42 -0400
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg, fsnotify: no oom-kill for remote memcg charging
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 5:41 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon 29-04-19 10:13:32, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> [...]
> > /*
> > * For queues with unlimited length lost events are not expected and
> > * can possibly have security implications. Avoid losing events when
> > * memory is short.
> > + *
> > + * Note: __GFP_NOFAIL takes precedence over __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL.
> > */
>
> No, I there is no rule like that. Combining the two is undefined
> currently and I do not think we want to legitimize it. What does it even
> mean?
>
Actually the code is doing that but I agree this is not documented and
weird. I will fix this.
Shakeel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists