From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com (mail-pb0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1968A6B0035 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:19:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id un15so1114298pbc.27 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:19:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from psmtp.com ([74.125.245.147]) by mx.google.com with SMTP id yd9si10843771pab.205.2013.11.18.17.19.03 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:19:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yh0-f45.google.com with SMTP id i7so3865952yha.32 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:19:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:19:00 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs access to memory reserves In-Reply-To: <20131118125507.GD32623@dhcp22.suse.cz> Message-ID: References: <20131031054942.GA26301@cmpxchg.org> <20131113233419.GJ707@cmpxchg.org> <20131114032508.GL707@cmpxchg.org> <20131118125240.GC32623@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20131118125507.GD32623@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > When current has a pending SIGKILL or is already in the exit path, it > > > only needs access to memory reserves to fully exit. In that sense, the > > > memcg is not actually oom for current, it simply needs to bypass memory > > > charges to exit and free its memory, which is guarantee itself that > > > memory will be freed. > > > > > > We only want to notify userspace for actionable oom conditions where > > > something needs to be done (and all oom handling can already be deferred > > > to userspace through this method by disabling the memcg oom killer with > > > memory.oom_control), not simply when a memcg has reached its limit, which > > > would actually have to happen before memcg reclaim actually frees memory > > > for charges. > > > > I believe this also fixes the issue reported by Eric > > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/28/74). I had a patch for this > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/31/94 but the code changed since then and > > this should be equivalent. > > > > > Reported-by: Johannes Weiner > > > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes > > Anyway, the patch looks good to me but please mention the above bug in > the changelog. > The patch is in -mm, so perhaps we can change the changelog if/when Eric confirms it fixes his issue. > Acked-by: Michal Hocko > Thanks! -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org