Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753085AbbF3Wuc (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:50:32 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181]:35452 "EHLO mail-ie0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752666AbbF3Wu0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:50:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:50:24 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Michal Hocko cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] mm, oom: pass an oom order of -1 when triggered by sysrq In-Reply-To: <20150619073202.GD4913@dhcp22.suse.cz> Message-ID: References: <20150619073202.GD4913@dhcp22.suse.cz> 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 List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 842 Lines: 20 On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote: > > The force_kill member of struct oom_context isn't needed if an order of > > -1 is used instead. > > But this doesn't make much sense to me. It is not like we would _have_ > to spare few bytes here. The meaning of force_kill is clear while order > with a weird value is a hack. It is harder to follow without any good > reason. > To me, this is the same as treating order == -1 as special in struct compact_control meaning that it was triggered from the command line and we really want to fully compact memory. It seems to have a nice symmetry. -- 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/