From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f72.google.com (mail-wm0-f72.google.com [74.125.82.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865B26B02C4 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 05:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f72.google.com with SMTP id 204so791042wmy.1 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 02:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q4si1449542wrc.151.2017.05.17.02.20.49 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 May 2017 02:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 11:20:43 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [RFC 1/6] mm, page_alloc: fix more premature OOM due to race with cpuset update Message-ID: <20170517092042.GH18247@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170411140609.3787-1-vbabka@suse.cz> <20170411140609.3787-2-vbabka@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Vlastimil Babka , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Li Zefan , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Hugh Dickins , Andrea Arcangeli , Anshuman Khandual , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Sun 30-04-17 16:33:10, Cristopher Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > > Such an application typically already has such logic and executes a > > > binding after discovering its numa node configuration on startup. It would > > > have to be modified to redo that action when it gets some sort of a signal > > > from the script telling it that the node config would be changed. > > > > > > Having this logic in the application instead of the kernel avoids all the > > > kernel messes that we keep on trying to deal with and IMHO is much > > > cleaner. > > > > That would be much simpler for us indeed. But we still IMHO can't > > abruptly start denying page fault allocations for existing applications > > that don't have the necessary awareness. > > We certainly can do that. The failure of the page faults are due to the > admin trying to move an application that is not aware of this and is using > mempols. That could be an error. Trying to move an application that > contains both absolute and relative node numbers is definitely something > that is potentiall so screwed up that the kernel should not muck around > with such an app. > > Also user space can determine if the application is using memory policies > and can then take appropriate measures (message to the sysadmin to eval > tge situation f.e.) or mess aroud with the processes memory policies on > its own. > > So this is certainly a way out of this mess. So how are you going to distinguish VM_FAULT_OOM from an empty mempolicy case in a raceless way? -- 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