From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f198.google.com (mail-wr0-f198.google.com [209.85.128.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C0E6B0003 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 07:22:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f198.google.com with SMTP id 3-v6so24349469wry.0 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 04:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o6-v6si2631972edl.95.2018.06.04.04.22.15 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Jun 2018 04:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 13:22:12 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Don't call schedule_timeout_killable() with oom_lock held. Message-ID: <20180604112212.GJ19202@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180525114213.GJ11881@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201805252046.JFF30222.JHSFOFQFMtVOLO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20180528124313.GC27180@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201805290557.BAJ39558.MFLtOJVFOHFOSQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20180529060755.GH27180@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180529160700.dbc430ebbfac301335ac8cf4@linux-foundation.org> <20180601152801.GH15278@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180601141110.34915e0a1fdbd07d25cc15cc@linux-foundation.org> <20180604070419.GG19202@dhcp22.suse.cz> <30c750b4-2c65-5737-3172-bddc666d0a8f@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <30c750b4-2c65-5737-3172-bddc666d0a8f@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Andrew Morton , guro@fb.com, rientjes@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, tj@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org On Mon 04-06-18 19:41:01, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/06/04 16:04, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 01-06-18 14:11:10, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:28:01 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue 29-05-18 16:07:00, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:17:41 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> I suggest applying > >>>>>> this patch first, and then fix "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patch. > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, I hope the whole pile gets merged in the upcoming merge window > >>>>> rather than stall even more. > >>>> > >>>> I'm more inclined to drop it all. David has identified significant > >>>> shortcomings and I'm not seeing a way of addressing those shortcomings > >>>> in a backward-compatible fashion. Therefore there is no way forward > >>>> at present. > >>> > >>> Well, I thought we have argued about those "shortcomings" back and forth > >>> and expressed that they are not really a problem for workloads which are > >>> going to use the feature. The backward compatibility has been explained > >>> as well AFAICT. > >> > >> Feel free to re-explain. It's the only way we'll get there. > > > > OK, I will go and my points to the last version of the patchset. > > > >> David has proposed an alternative patchset. IIRC Roman gave that a > >> one-line positive response but I don't think it has seen a lot of > >> attention? > > > > I plan to go and revisit that. My preliminary feedback is that a more > > generic policy API is really tricky and the patchset has many holes > > there. But I will come with a more specific feedback in the respective > > thread. > > > Is current version of "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patchset going to be > dropped for now? I want to know which state should I use for baseline for my patch. Is it that urgent that it cannot wait until after the merge window when thing should settle down? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs