From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E716B0007 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 01:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id n4-v6so3080415edr.5 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 22:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r18-v6si488221edl.68.2018.07.30.22.09.30 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Jul 2018 22:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:09:28 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc: PF_WQ_WORKER threads must sleep at should_reclaim_retry(). Message-ID: <20180731050928.GA4557@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <55c9da7f-e448-964a-5b50-47f89a24235b@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> <20180730093257.GG24267@dhcp22.suse.cz> <9158a23e-7793-7735-e35c-acd540ca59bf@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> <20180730144647.GX24267@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180730145425.GE1206094@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <0018ac3b-94ee-5f09-e4e0-df53d2cbc925@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> <20180730154424.GG1206094@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <20180730185110.GB24267@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180730191005.GC24267@dhcp22.suse.cz> <6f433d59-4a56-b698-e119-682bb8bf6713@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6f433d59-4a56-b698-e119-682bb8bf6713@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Tejun Heo , Roman Gushchin , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , David Rientjes , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-mm , LKML On Tue 31-07-18 06:01:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/07/31 4:10, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Since should_reclaim_retry() should be a natural reschedule point, > > let's do the short sleep for PF_WQ_WORKER threads unconditionally in > > order to guarantee that other pending work items are started. This will > > workaround this problem and it is less fragile than hunting down when > > the sleep is missed. E.g. we used to have a sleeping point in the oom > > path but this has been removed recently because it caused other issues. > > Having a single sleeping point is more robust. > > linux.git has not removed the sleeping point in the OOM path yet. Since removing the > sleeping point in the OOM path can mitigate CVE-2016-10723, please do so immediately. is this an {Acked,Reviewed,Tested}-by? I will send the patch to Andrew if the patch is ok. > (And that change will conflict with Roman's cgroup aware OOM killer patchset. But it > should be easy to rebase.) That is still a WIP so I would lose sleep over it. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs