All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	oleg@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skipregular OOM killer path
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 13:39:30 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201604091339.FAJ12491.FVHQFFMSJLtOOO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160408115033.GH29820@dhcp22.suse.cz>

Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 08-04-16 20:19:28, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > I looked at next-20160408 but I again came to think that we should remove
> > these shortcuts (something like a patch shown bottom).
>
> feel free to send the patch with the full description. But I would
> really encourage you to check the history to learn why those have been
> added and describe why those concerns are not valid/important anymore.

I believe that past discussions and decisions about current code are too
optimistic because they did not take 'The "too small to fail" memory-
allocation rule' problem into account.

If you ignore me with "check the history to learn why those have been added
and describe why those concerns are not valid/important anymore", I can do
nothing. What are valid/important concerns that have higher priority than
keeping 'The "too small to fail" memory-allocation rule' problem and continue
telling a lie to end users? Please enumerate such concerns.

> Your way of throwing a large patch based on an extreme load which is
> basically DoSing the machine is not the ideal one.

You are not paying attention to real world's limitations I'm facing.
I have to waste my resource trying to identify and fix on behalf of
customers before they determine the kernel version to use for their
systems, for your way of thinking is that "We don't need to worry about
it because I have never received such report" while the reality of
customers is that "I'm not skillful enough to catch the problematic
behavior and make a reproducer" or "I have a little skill but I'm not
permitted to modify my systems for reporting the problematic behavior".
If you listen to me, I don't need to do such thing. It is very very sad.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	oleg@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skipregular OOM killer path
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 13:39:30 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201604091339.FAJ12491.FVHQFFMSJLtOOO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160408115033.GH29820@dhcp22.suse.cz>

Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 08-04-16 20:19:28, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > I looked at next-20160408 but I again came to think that we should remove
> > these shortcuts (something like a patch shown bottom).
>
> feel free to send the patch with the full description. But I would
> really encourage you to check the history to learn why those have been
> added and describe why those concerns are not valid/important anymore.

I believe that past discussions and decisions about current code are too
optimistic because they did not take 'The "too small to fail" memory-
allocation rule' problem into account.

If you ignore me with "check the history to learn why those have been added
and describe why those concerns are not valid/important anymore", I can do
nothing. What are valid/important concerns that have higher priority than
keeping 'The "too small to fail" memory-allocation rule' problem and continue
telling a lie to end users? Please enumerate such concerns.

> Your way of throwing a large patch based on an extreme load which is
> basically DoSing the machine is not the ideal one.

You are not paying attention to real world's limitations I'm facing.
I have to waste my resource trying to identify and fix on behalf of
customers before they determine the kernel version to use for their
systems, for your way of thinking is that "We don't need to worry about
it because I have never received such report" while the reality of
customers is that "I'm not skillful enough to catch the problematic
behavior and make a reproducer" or "I have a little skill but I'm not
permitted to modify my systems for reporting the problematic behavior".
If you listen to me, I don't need to do such thing. It is very very sad.

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-09  4:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-06 14:13 [PATCH 0/3] oom reaper follow ups v1 Michal Hocko
2016-04-06 14:13 ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-06 14:13 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm, oom: move GFP_NOFS check to out_of_memory Michal Hocko
2016-04-06 14:13   ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-06 14:13 ` [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skip regular OOM killer path Michal Hocko
2016-04-06 14:13   ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-07 11:38   ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-07 11:38     ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-08 11:19     ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-08 11:19       ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-08 11:50       ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-08 11:50         ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-09  4:39         ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2016-04-09  4:39           ` [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skipregular " Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-11 12:02           ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 12:02             ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 13:26             ` [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skip regular " Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-11 13:26               ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-11 13:43               ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-11 13:43                 ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-13 11:08                 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-13 11:08                   ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-08 11:34     ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-08 11:34       ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-08 13:14   ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-08 13:14     ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-06 14:13 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom_reaper: clear TIF_MEMDIE for all tasks queued for oom_reaper Michal Hocko
2016-04-06 14:13   ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-07 11:55   ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-07 11:55     ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-08 11:34     ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-08 11:34       ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-16  2:51       ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-17 11:54         ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-18 11:59           ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-19 14:17             ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-19 15:07               ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-04-19 19:32                 ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-08 13:07   ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-08 13:07     ` 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=201604091339.FAJ12491.FVHQFFMSJLtOOO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=rientjes@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.