Re: [PATCH (try #2)] mm: avoid unnecessary OOM kills

[Paul Jackson]

Dave wrote:
> -	if (printk_ratelimit()) {
> -		printk("oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x%x, order=%d\n",
> -			gfp_mask, order);
> -		dump_stack();
> -		show_mem();
> -	}
> -
> +	printk("oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x%x, order=%d\n", gfp_mask, order);
> +	dump_stack();
> +	show_mem();

Why disable this printk_ratelimit?  Does this expose us to a Denial of
Service attack from someone forcing multiple oom-kills in a small
cpuset, generating much kernel printk output?

> +/* Try to allocate one more time before invoking the OOM killer. */
> +static struct page * oom_alloc(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,

This comment is slightly stale.  Not only does oom_alloc() try one
more allocation, it also actually does invoke the OOM killer.

How about the comment:

   /* Serialize oom killing, while trying to allocate a page */

Or some such ..

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/