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 686636B0005 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2018 11:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f72.google.com with SMTP id t185-v6so928904wmt.8 for ; Fri, 01 Jun 2018 08:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h34-v6si1085290edc.132.2018.06.01.08.28.03 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Jun 2018 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:28:01 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Don't call schedule_timeout_killable() with oom_lock held. Message-ID: <20180601152801.GH15278@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <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> <20180528124313.GC27180@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201805290557.BAJ39558.MFLtOJVFOHFOSQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20180529060755.GH27180@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180529160700.dbc430ebbfac301335ac8cf4@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180529160700.dbc430ebbfac301335ac8cf4@linux-foundation.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Tetsuo Handa , guro@fb.com, rientjes@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, tj@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org On Tue 29-05-18 16:07:00, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:17:41 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > I suggest applying > > > this patch first, and then fix "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patch. > > > > Well, I hope the whole pile gets merged in the upcoming merge window > > rather than stall even more. > > I'm more inclined to drop it all. David has identified significant > shortcomings and I'm not seeing a way of addressing those shortcomings > in a backward-compatible fashion. Therefore there is no way forward > at present. Well, I thought we have argued about those "shortcomings" back and forth and expressed that they are not really a problem for workloads which are going to use the feature. The backward compatibility has been explained as well AFAICT. Anyway if this is your position on the matter then I just give up. I've tried to do my best to review the feature (as !author nor the end user) and I cannot do really much more. I find it quite sad though to be honest. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs