From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f69.google.com (mail-wm0-f69.google.com [74.125.82.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B416D6B0007 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 03:36:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f69.google.com with SMTP id l4-v6so1329508wmh.0 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m25-v6si2187610edj.287.2018.06.21.00.36.51 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:36:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:36:46 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge path Message-ID: <20180621073646.GB10465@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180620103736.13880-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20180620151812.GA2441@cmpxchg.org> <20180620153148.GO13685@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180620193836.GB4734@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180620193836.GB4734@cmpxchg.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Johannes Weiner Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Greg Thelen , Shakeel Butt , Andrew Morton , LKML On Wed 20-06-18 15:38:36, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 05:31:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > * Please note that mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize might fail to find a > > * victim and then we have rely on mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize otherwise > > * we would fall back to the global oom killer in pagefault_out_of_memory > > I can't quite figure out what this paragraph is trying to > say. "oom_synchronize might fail [...] and we have to rely on > oom_synchronize". Hm? heh, vim autocompletion + a stale comment from the previous implementation which ENOMEM on the fail path. I went with * Please note that mem_cgroup_out_of_memory might fail to find a * victim and then we have to bail out from the charge path. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs