Re: [PATCH] oom: split out forced OOM killer

[David Rientjes]

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 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/