Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm,oom: Move last second allocation to inside the OOM killer.

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>]

On Tue 05-12-17 22:17:27, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > I do understand the upsides you're advocating for - although you
> > > haven't quantified them. They're just not worth the downsides.
> > 
> > OK, fair enough. Let's drop the patch then. There is no _strong_
> > justification for it and what I've seen as "nice to have" is indeed
> > really hard to quantify and not really worth merging without a full
> > consensus.
> 
> Dropping "mm,oom: move last second allocation to inside the OOM killer"
> means dropping "mm,oom: remove oom_lock serialization from the OOM reaper"
> together, right?

No, I believe that we can drop the lock even without this patch. This
will need more investigation though.

> The latter patch helped mitigating
> schedule_timeout_killable(1) lockup problem though...
> 
> Also, what is the alternative for "mm,oom: use ALLOC_OOM for OOM victim's
> last second allocation" ? I proposed "mm, oom: task_will_free_mem(current)
> should ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP for once." and rejected by you. I also proposed
> "mm,oom: Set ->signal->oom_mm to all thread groups sharing the victim's mm."
> and rejected by you.

Yes, and so far I am not really sure we have to care all that much. I
haven't seen any real world workload actually hitting this condition.

-- 
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>