From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ECF1C48BDF for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:43:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF1861184 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:43:12 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org ACF1861184 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0DB016B006E; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 08:43:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 0B1436B0070; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 08:43:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id EBB1E6B0071; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 08:43:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0085.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.85]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8136B006E for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 08:43:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin32.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6907F824999B for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:43:11 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78237779382.32.FED0747 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by imf27.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA8280192EE for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:43:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B00D21A44; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:43:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1623328989; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=hEJqmzVa3+J6o6UKU4lgHo91Lw4IYVXyD67GtqqB0fQ=; b=cSqUzEfUAsz7xtFrqEbjZ/qCY6Dys74/JJXE4yu5J/T22VuHe2m65wSK7mIBakkSzamWcy iUCHqac0vSJUkIho8vg0EBrme4WIn1E9sa/wgu+zNkF6/npBeKZ6ShwMsSENy/3xHWV7Yn sGqnnItwYfdJ/3x0JMHyC50diA6Pl6U= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45A70A4293; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:43:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:43:08 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Aaron Tomlin Cc: Waiman Long , Shakeel Butt , Linux MM , Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/oom_kill: allow oom kill allocating task for non-global case Message-ID: References: <6d23ce58-4c4b-116a-6d74-c2cf4947492b@redhat.com> <353d012f-e8d4-c54c-b33e-54737e1a0115@redhat.com> <20210609143534.v65qknfihqimiivd@ava.usersys.com> <20210610122323.6geriip66jjmdstj@ava.usersys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210610122323.6geriip66jjmdstj@ava.usersys.com> Authentication-Results: imf27.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=cSqUzEfU; spf=pass (imf27.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: ABA8280192EE X-Stat-Signature: hbsii7pp3y3bcwjd9kz4j718t71x1gbg X-HE-Tag: 1623328985-155727 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu 10-06-21 13:23:23, Aaron Tomlin wrote: [...] > Anyhow, I think we should exclude tasks that have MMF_OOM_SKIP applied in > dump_tasks() as it could be misleading. Well, I am not sure this is a good thing in general. We do not want to hide tasks. We already do display oom_score_adj_min even though they are not eligible and that can serve a good purpose from my experience. It gives us some picture at least. Maybe a flag to mark all uneligible tasks would be something useful but I wouldn't drop them from the list. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs