From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f70.google.com (mail-oi0-f70.google.com [209.85.218.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAADC6B000D for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:55:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f70.google.com with SMTP id j189-v6so2014433oih.11 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (www262.sakura.ne.jp. [202.181.97.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b1-v6si22134941oih.394.2018.07.16.17.55.31 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <201807170055.w6H0tHn5075670@www262.sakura.ne.jp> Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 0/7] cgroup-aware OOM killer From: Tetsuo Handa MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:55:17 +0900 References: <0d018c7e-a3de-a23a-3996-bed8b28b1e4a@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> <20180716220918.GA3898@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> In-Reply-To: <20180716220918.GA3898@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@vger.kernel.org, Vladimir Davydov , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 06:13:47AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > No response from Roman and David... > > > > Andrew, will you once drop Roman's cgroup-aware OOM killer and David's patches? > > Roman's series has a bug which I mentioned and which can be avoided by my patch. > > David's patch is using MMF_UNSTABLE incorrectly such that it might start selecting > > next OOM victim without trying to reclaim any memory. > > > > Since they are not responding to my mail, I suggest once dropping from linux-next. > > I was in cc, and didn't thought that you're expecting something from me. Oops. I was waiting for your response. ;-) But Roman, my patch conflicts with your "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patch in linux-next. And it seems to me that your patch contains a bug which leads to premature memory allocation failure explained below. Can we apply my patch prior to your "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patch (which eliminates "delay" and "out:" from your patch) so that people can easily backport my patch? Or, do you want to apply a fix (which eliminates "delay" and "out:" from linux-next) prior to my patch? > > I don't get, why it's necessary to drop the cgroup oom killer to merge your fix? > I'm happy to help with rebasing and everything else. Yes, I wish you rebase your series on top of OOM lockup (CVE-2016-10723) mitigation patch ( https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=153112243424285&w=4 ). It is a trivial change and easy to cleanly backport (if applied before your series). Also, I expect you to check whether my cleanup patch which removes "abort" path ( [PATCH 1/2] at https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=153119509215026&w=4 ) helps simplifying your series. I don't know detailed behavior of your series, but I assume that your series do not kill threads which current thread should not wait for MMF_OOM_SKIP.