From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f70.google.com (mail-pl0-f70.google.com [209.85.160.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084F96B0269 for ; Mon, 28 May 2018 11:54:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl0-f70.google.com with SMTP id b31-v6so7808572plb.5 for ; Mon, 28 May 2018 08:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b70-v6si30780109pfe.265.2018.05.28.08.53.58 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 May 2018 08:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 14:43:13 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Don't call schedule_timeout_killable() with oom_lock held. Message-ID: <20180528124313.GC27180@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180524115017.GE20441@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201805250117.w4P1HgdG039943@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20180525083118.GI11881@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201805251957.EJJ09809.LFJHFFVOOSQOtM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20180525114213.GJ11881@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201805252046.JFF30222.JHSFOFQFMtVOLO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201805252046.JFF30222.JHSFOFQFMtVOLO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: guro@fb.com, rientjes@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, tj@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org On Fri 25-05-18 20:46:21, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 25-05-18 19:57:32, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > What is wrong with the folliwing? should_reclaim_retry should be a > > > > natural reschedule point. PF_WQ_WORKER is a special case which needs a > > > > stronger rescheduling policy. Doing that unconditionally seems more > > > > straightforward than depending on a zone being a good candidate for a > > > > further reclaim. > > > > > > Where is schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1) for !PF_KTHREAD threads? > > > > Re-read what I've said. > > Please show me as a complete patch. Then, I will test your patch. So how about we start as simple as the following? If we _really_ need to touch should_reclaim_retry then it should be done in a separate patch with some numbers/tracing data backing that story. ---