From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Cc: Chen Ridong <chenridong@huaweicloud.com>,
hannes@cmpxchg.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
muchun.song@linux.dev, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chenridong@huawei.com,
wangweiyang2@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: avoid dead loop when setting memory.max
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 21:35:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z6u0o_xr9Lo7nwh-@tiehlicka> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <gf5pqage6o7azhzdlp56q6fvlfg52gbi47d43ro7r6n2hys54i@aux77hoig5j2>
On Tue 11-02-25 11:04:21, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 08:18:19AM +0000, Chen Ridong wrote:
[...]
> Wouldn't it be more robust if we put an upper bound on the else case of
> above condition i.e. fix number of retries? As you have discovered there
> is a hidden dependency on the forward progress of oom_reaper and this
> check/code-path which I think is not needed.
Any OOM path has a dependency on oom_reaper or task exiting. Is there
any reason why this path should be any special? With cond_resched we can
look for a day where this will be just removed and the code will still
work. With a number of retries we will have a non-deterministic time
dependent behavior because number of retries rather than fwd progress
would define the failure mode.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-11 20:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-11 8:18 Chen Ridong
2025-02-11 9:02 ` Michal Hocko
2025-02-11 11:29 ` Chen Ridong
2025-02-11 19:04 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-02-11 20:35 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2025-02-12 0:29 ` Shakeel Butt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Z6u0o_xr9Lo7nwh-@tiehlicka \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chenridong@huawei.com \
--cc=chenridong@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=wangweiyang2@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox