From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (mail-wm0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA88D6B0005 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:47:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id c200so130740985wme.0 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:47:29 -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 r123si27900501wmb.8.2016.02.15.12.47.28 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:47:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id g62so17542953wme.2 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:47:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:47:26 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] oom: clear TIF_MEMDIE after oom_reaper managed to unmap the address space Message-ID: <20160215204725.GD9223@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20160204144319.GD14425@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201602050008.HEG12919.FFOMOHVtQFSLJO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20160204163113.GF14425@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201602052014.HBG52666.HFMOQVLFOSFJtO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20160206083014.GA25220@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201602062023.ECG12960.QVStLJOHFOFMOF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201602062023.ECG12960.QVStLJOHFOFMOF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, oleg@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, hughd@google.com, andrea@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat 06-02-16 20:23:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > By always waking the OOM reaper up, we can delegate the duty of unlocking > the OOM killer (by clearing TIF_MEMDIE or some other means) to the OOM > reaper because the OOM reaper is tracking all TIF_MEMDIE tasks. And again, I didn't say this would be incorrect. I am just saying that this will get more complex if we want to handle all the cases properly. > > I would like to target the next merge window rather than have this out > > of tree for another release cycle which means that we should really > > focus on the current functionality and make sure we haven't missed > > anything. As there is no fundamental disagreement to the approach all > > the rest are just technicalities. > > Of course, we can target the OOM reaper for the next merge window. I'm > suggesting you that my changes would help handling corner cases (bugs) > you are not paying attention to. I am paying attention to them. I just think that incremental changes are preferable and we should start with simpler cases before we go further steps. There is no reason to rush this. -- 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