From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com (mail-wm0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEE36B0009 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:36:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id r129so45278561wmr.0 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com (mail-wm0-f67.google.com. [74.125.82.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ll4si18049715wjb.130.2016.01.28.14.36.17 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:36:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id r129so6514743wmr.0 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:36:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:36:16 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2] oom: clear TIF_MEMDIE after oom_reaper managed to unmap the address space Message-ID: <20160128223615.GB14803@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1452516120-5535-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <201601181335.JJD69226.JHVQSMFOFOFtOL@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20160126163823.GG27563@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201601282024.JBG90615.JLFQOSFFVOMHtO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20160128215121.GE621@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201601290726.GGC12497.OSQJVtMFFOHOLF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201601290726.GGC12497.OSQJVtMFFOHOLF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@suse.de, rientjes@google.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com, hughd@google.com, andrea@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 29-01-16 07:26:39, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 28-01-16 20:24:36, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > [...] > > > I like the OOM reaper approach but I can't agree on merging the OOM reaper > > > without providing a guaranteed last resort at the same time. If you do want > > > to start the OOM reaper as simple as possible (without being bothered by > > > a lot of possible corner cases), please pursue a guaranteed last resort > > > at the same time. > > > > I am getting tired of this level of argumentation. oom_reaper in its > > current form is a step forward. I have acknowledged there are possible > > improvements doable on top but I do not see them necessary for the core > > part being merged. I am not trying to rush this in because I am very > > well aware of how subtle and complex all the interactions might be. > > So please stop your "we must have it all at once" attitude. This is > > nothing we have to rush in. We are not talking about a regression which > > has to be absolutely fixed in few days. > > I'm not asking you to merge a perfect version of oom_reaper from the > beginning. I know it is too difficult. Instead, I'm asking you to allow > using timeout based approaches (shown below) as temporarily workaround > because there are environments which cannot wait for oom_reaper to become > enough reliable. Would you please reply to the thread which proposed a > guaranteed last resort (shown below)? I really fail to see why you have to bring that part in this particular thread or in any other oom related discussion. I didn't get to read through that discussion and make my opinion yet. -- 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