Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 25-01-17 19:33:59, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I think we are missing a check for fatal_signal_pending in > > > iomap_file_buffered_write. This means that an oom victim can consume the > > > full memory reserves. What do you think about the following? I haven't > > > tested this but it mimics generic_perform_write so I guess it should > > > work. > > > > Looks OK to me. I worried > > > > #define AOP_FLAG_UNINTERRUPTIBLE 0x0001 /* will not do a short write */ > > > > which forbids (!?) aborting the loop. But it seems that this flag is > > no longer checked (i.e. set but not used). So, everybody should be ready > > for short write, although I don't know whether exofs / hfs / hfsplus are > > doing appropriate error handling. > > Those were using generic implementation before and that handles this > case AFAICS. What I wanted to say is: "We can remove AOP_FLAG_UNINTERRUPTIBLE completely because grep does not find that flag used in condition check, can't we?". -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
