Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 00:44:36 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> 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?
--
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/