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

[Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>]

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? 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.

--
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>