From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg, thp: do not invoke oom killer on thp charges
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 02:26:39 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803230208100.97541@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180323090704.GK23100@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Examples of where this isn't already done? It certainly wasn't a problem
> > before __GFP_NORETRY was dropped in commit 2516035499b9 but you suspect
> > it's a problem now.
>
> It is not a problem _right now_ as I've already pointed out few
> times. We do not trigger the OOM killer for anything but #PF path. But
> this is an implementation detail which can change in future and there is
> actually some demand for the change. Once we start triggering the oom
> killer for all charges then we do not really want to have the disparity.
>
Ok, my patch is only addressing the code as it sits today, not any
theoretical code in the future. The fact remains that the
PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER and high_zoneidx test for lowmem allocations in
the allocation path are because oom killing is unlikely to free contiguous
pages and lowmem, respectively. We wouldn't avoid oom kill in memcg just
because a charge is __GFP_DMA. We shouldn't avoid oom kill in memcg just
because the order is PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER: it's about contiguous
memory, not about amount of memory. I believe you understand that and so
I'm optimistic that we are good in closing this thread out. Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-23 9:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-21 20:59 Michal Hocko
2018-03-21 21:22 ` David Rientjes
2018-03-21 21:41 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-22 8:26 ` David Rientjes
2018-03-22 8:56 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-22 20:29 ` David Rientjes
2018-03-23 9:07 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-23 9:26 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2018-04-03 14:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2018-04-03 14:58 ` Johannes Weiner
2018-04-03 15:55 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-03 18:11 ` Johannes Weiner
2018-04-03 19:31 Michal Hocko
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=alpine.DEB.2.20.1803230208100.97541@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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