Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 10:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>
cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: split out forced OOM killer
In-Reply-To: <557187F9.8020301@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1506081059200.10521@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <1433235187-32673-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.10.1506041557070.16555@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <557187F9.8020301@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1249
Lines: 23

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:

> > I'm not sure what the benefit of this is, and it's adding more code.
> > Having multiple pathways and requirements, such as constrained_alloc(), to
> > oom kill a process isn't any clearer, in my opinion.  It also isn't
> > intended to be optimized since the oom killer called from the page
> > allocator and from sysrq aren't fastpaths.  To me, this seems like only a
> > source code level change and doesn't make anything more clear but rather
> > adds more code and obfuscates the entry path.
> 
> At the very least, it does make the semantics of sysrq-f much nicer for admins
> (especially the bit where it ignores the panic_on_oom setting, if the admin
> wants the system to panic, he'll use sysrq-c).  There have been times I've had
> to hit sysrq-f multiple times to get to actually kill anything, and this looks
> to me like it would eliminate that rather annoying issue as well.
> 

Are you saying there's a functional change with this patch/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/