Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg, fsnotify: no oom-kill for remote memcg charging

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 5:41 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> 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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux