Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Bring OOM notifier callbacks to outside of OOM killer.

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Bring OOM notifier callbacks to outside of OOM killer.
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 05:10:48 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f40d85e0-1d90-2261-99a4-4db315df4860@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180626170345.GA3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On 2018/06/27 2:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> There are a lot of ways it could be made concurrency safe.  If you need
> me to do this, please do let me know.
> 
> That said, the way it is now written, if you invoke rcu_oom_notify()
> twice in a row, the second invocation will wait until the memory from
> the first invocation is freed.  What do you want me to do if you invoke
> me concurrently?
> 
> 1.	One invocation "wins", waits for the earlier callbacks to
> 	complete, then encourages any subsequent callbacks to be
> 	processed more quickly.  The other invocations return
> 	immediately without doing anything.
> 
> 2.	The invocations serialize, with each invocation waiting for
> 	the callbacks from previous invocation (in mutex_lock() order
> 	or some such), and then starting a new round.
> 
> 3.	Something else?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul

As far as I can see,

-	atomic_set(&oom_callback_count, 1);
+	atomic_inc(&oom_callback_count);

should be sufficient.