From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f198.google.com (mail-wr0-f198.google.com [209.85.128.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA266B0003 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 03:04:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f198.google.com with SMTP id b12-v6so5783016wrs.10 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 00:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j2-v6si668256edp.51.2018.06.04.00.04.20 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Jun 2018 00:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 09:04:19 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Don't call schedule_timeout_killable() with oom_lock held. Message-ID: <20180604070419.GG19202@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> <20180601152801.GH15278@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180601141110.34915e0a1fdbd07d25cc15cc@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180601141110.34915e0a1fdbd07d25cc15cc@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 Fri 01-06-18 14:11:10, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:28:01 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > 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. > > Feel free to re-explain. It's the only way we'll get there. OK, I will go and my points to the last version of the patchset. > David has proposed an alternative patchset. IIRC Roman gave that a > one-line positive response but I don't think it has seen a lot of > attention? I plan to go and revisit that. My preliminary feedback is that a more generic policy API is really tricky and the patchset has many holes there. But I will come with a more specific feedback in the respective thread. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs