From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com (mail-lb0-f179.google.com [209.85.217.179]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB3E6B0098 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 11:39:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l4so974673lbv.10 for ; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:39:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bn10si6966710lbc.108.2014.11.05.08.39.57 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:39:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 17:39:56 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] OOM, PM: OOM killed task shouldn't escape PM suspend Message-ID: <20141105163956.GD28226@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <4766859.KSKPTm3b0x@vostro.rjw.lan> <20141021142939.GG9415@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20141104192705.GA22163@htj.dyndns.org> <20141105124620.GB4527@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20141105130247.GA14386@htj.dyndns.org> <20141105133100.GC4527@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20141105134219.GD4527@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20141105154436.GB14386@htj.dyndns.org> <20141105160115.GA28226@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20141105162929.GD14386@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141105162929.GD14386@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , Cong Wang , David Rientjes , Oleg Nesterov , LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux PM list On Wed 05-11-14 11:29:29, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Michal. > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:01:15PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > I am not sure I am following. With the latest patch OOM path is no > > longer blocked by the PM (aka oom_killer_disable()). Allocations simply > > fail if the read_trylock fails. > > oom_killer_disable is moved before tasks are frozen and it will wait for > > all on-going OOM killers on the write lock. OOM killer is enabled again > > on the resume path. > > Sure, but why are we exposing new interfaces? Can't we just make > oom_killer_disable() first set the disable flag and wait for the > on-going ones to finish (and make the function fail if it gets chosen > as an OOM victim)? Still not following. How do you want to detect an on-going OOM without any interface around out_of_memory? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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: email@kvack.org