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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552ABC433F5 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4856610FF for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:03:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org E4856610FF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 75AE96B0071; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 70A0D900002; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:03:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5F9AF6B0073; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:03:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505186B0071 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2351818FCF6 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:03:22 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78720007044.17.0FEDEDF Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by imf15.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E5BD00009D for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:03:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCBDF21989; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:03:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1634810599; 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=lb7XXB7wqKHGBh2gL7Zyuh+FLppJxySX9xGrB8I5wEA=; b=MaSik9roDAoYdCgZi6qhyc/laF7U1vE39+hc/YlZ2kqzOLWCOp9dmjNxyq1n3YFWcr31HR hfp/RkT+NiT208Nclww+4g8e32HXhCKSORvYbq/dLlJBIuj5KXhL/Vt7R6h6isHu1TOkUv f6TAQnNCl2+kwVuGHquE1a7UyTfgFd0= 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 817F3A3B81; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:03:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:03:18 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Vasily Averin , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton , Roman Gushchin , Uladzislau Rezki , Vlastimil Babka , Shakeel Butt , Mel Gorman , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@openvz.org Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg 2/3] memcg: remove charge forcinig for dying tasks Message-ID: References: <56180e53-b705-b1be-9b60-75e141c8560c@virtuozzo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 70E5BD00009D X-Stat-Signature: hw9p8jgqo68d96sq6zw3e9fyhj31dzr8 Authentication-Results: imf15.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=MaSik9ro; spf=pass (imf15.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-HE-Tag: 1634810597-318953 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 21-10-21 00:20:02, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2021/10/20 23:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > > One argument for removing it from here is the maintainability. Now you > > have a memcg specific check which is not in sync with the oom. E.g. > > out_of_memory does task_will_free_mem as the very first thing. You are > > also automatically excluding oom killer for cases where that might make > > a sense. > > What makes it possible to remove this check? > This check was added because task_will_free_mem() in out_of_memory() does NOT work. > See commit 7775face207922ea ("memcg: killed threads should not invoke memcg OOM killer"). You are right. I've forgot about this and should have checked git blame. Thanks for bringing this up! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs