netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net-memcg: avoid stalls when under memory pressure

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:   Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:40:16 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, weiwan@...gle.com, ncardwell@...gle.com,
        ycheng@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net-memcg: avoid stalls when under memory pressure

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:34:20 -0700 Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > How about just using gfp_any() and we can remove gfp_memcg_charge()?  
> >
> > How about keeping gfp_memcg_charge() and adding a comment on its intent ?
> >
> > gfp_any() is very generic :/  

That was my thinking, and I'm not sure what I could put in a comment.
Wouldn't it be some mix of words 'flags', 'memory', 'cgroup' and
'charge'... which is just spelling out the name of the function? 

I mean:

	/* Alloc flags for passing to cgroup socket memory charging */

does not add much value, right?