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 [off-list ref] 1.925.600.0401

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>