From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] oom: decouple mems_allowed from oom_unkillable_task
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 19:19:20 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a94acd91-2bae-0634-b8a4-d5c8674b54f2@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190626065118.GJ17798@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 2019/06/26 15:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I think that VM_BUG_ON in has_intersects_mems_allowed is over protective
> and it makes the rest of the code a bit more convoluted than necessary.
> Is there any reason we just do the check and return true there? Btw.
> has_intersects_mems_allowed sounds like a misnomer to me. It suggests
> to be a more generic function while it has some memcg implications which
> are not trivial to spot without digging deeper. I would go with
> oom_cpuset_eligible or something along those lines.
Is "mempolicy_nodemask_intersects(tsk) returning true when tsk already
passed mpol_put_task_policy(tsk) in do_exit()" what we want?
If tsk is an already exit()ed thread group leader, that thread group is
needlessly selected by the OOM killer because mpol_put_task_policy()
returns true?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-26 10:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-24 21:26 [PATCH v3 1/3] mm, oom: refactor dump_tasks for memcg OOMs Shakeel Butt
2019-06-24 21:26 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] mm, oom: remove redundant task_in_mem_cgroup() check Shakeel Butt
2019-06-26 6:38 ` Michal Hocko
2019-06-28 2:12 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-06-24 21:26 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] oom: decouple mems_allowed from oom_unkillable_task Shakeel Butt
2019-06-26 6:55 ` Michal Hocko
2019-06-26 10:19 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2019-06-26 10:47 ` Michal Hocko
2019-06-26 11:46 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-06-26 12:15 ` Michal Hocko
2019-06-28 2:17 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-06-26 9:12 ` Hillf Danton
2019-06-26 9:18 ` Michal Hocko
2019-06-26 19:47 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-06-26 14:04 Hillf Danton
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=a94acd91-2bae-0634-b8a4-d5c8674b54f2@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.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