From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 01:28:15 +0200 Message-ID: <200905120128.16780.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200905120044.37342.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090511160704.e1fa2512.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090511160704.e1fa2512.akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Andrew Morton Cc: rientjes-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, fengguang.wu-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-pm-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, alan-jenkins-cCz0Lq7MMjm9FHfhHBbuYA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, mel-wPRd99KPJ+uzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2009 00:44:36 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > Which means this patch: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124165031723627 (it also is my favourite > > one). > > ho hum, I could live with that ;) > > Would it make sense to turn it into something more general? Instead of > "tasks_frozen/processes_are_frozen()", present it as > "oom_killer_disabled/oom_killer_is_disabled()"? > > That would invite other subsystems to use it, if they want to. Which > might well be a bad thing on their behalf, hard to say.. I chose the names this way because the variable is defined in the freezer code. Alternatively, I can define one in page_alloc.c, add [disable|enable]_oom_killer() for manipulating it and call them from the freezer code. Do you think that would be better? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758711AbZEKX3C (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2009 19:29:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756482AbZEKX2v (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2009 19:28:51 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:36405 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756214AbZEKX2u (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2009 19:28:50 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 01:28:15 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.2 (Linux/2.6.30-rc5-rjw; KDE/4.2.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: rientjes@google.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, pavel@ucw.cz, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org, mel@csn.ul.ie References: <200905120044.37342.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090511160704.e1fa2512.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090511160704.e1fa2512.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200905120128.16780.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2009 00:44:36 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > Which means this patch: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124165031723627 (it also is my favourite > > one). > > ho hum, I could live with that ;) > > Would it make sense to turn it into something more general? Instead of > "tasks_frozen/processes_are_frozen()", present it as > "oom_killer_disabled/oom_killer_is_disabled()"? > > That would invite other subsystems to use it, if they want to. Which > might well be a bad thing on their behalf, hard to say.. I chose the names this way because the variable is defined in the freezer code. Alternatively, I can define one in page_alloc.c, add [disable|enable]_oom_killer() for manipulating it and call them from the freezer code. Do you think that would be better?