On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Yes, and that's why I believe we should pursue that direction without the > > associated "cleanup" that adds 35 lines of code to supress a panic. In > > other words, there's no reason to combine a patch that suppresses the > > panic even with panic_on_oom, which I support, and a "cleanup" that I > > believe just obfuscates the code. > > > > It's a one-liner change: just test for force_kill and suppress the panic; > > we don't need 35 new lines that create even more unique entry paths. > > I completely detest yet another check in out_of_memory. And there is > even no reason to do that. Forced kill and genuine oom have different > objectives and combining those two just makes the code harder to read > (one has to go to check the syrq callback to realize that the forced > path is triggered from the workqueue context and that current->mm != > NULL check will prevent some heuristics. This is just too ugly to > live). So why the heck are you pushing for keeping everything in a > single path? > Perhaps if you renamed "force_kill" to "sysrq" it would make more sense to you? I don't think the oom killer needs multiple entry points that duplicates code and adds more than twice the lines it removes. It would make sense if that was an optimization in a hot path, or a warm path, or even a luke-warm path, but not an icy cold path like the oom killer. check_panic_on_oom() can simply do if (sysrq) return; It's not hard and it's very clear. We don't need 35 more lines of code to do this. -- 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>