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, 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>