Re: [patch 2/3] mm, oom: pass an oom order of -1 when triggered by sysrq

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

 



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, 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>



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