From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: guro@fb.com, rientjes@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, tj@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Don't call schedule_timeout_killable() with oom_lock held.
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 19:41:01 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <30c750b4-2c65-5737-3172-bddc666d0a8f@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180604070419.GG19202@dhcp22.suse.cz>
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 <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue 29-05-18 16:07:00, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:17:41 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> 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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-04 10:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-12 14:18 [PATCH] mm,oom: Don't call schedule_timeout_killable() with oom_lock held Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-15 9:16 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-18 10:14 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-18 12:20 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-20 15:56 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-22 6:18 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-23 10:24 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-23 11:57 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-23 13:45 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-23 14:56 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-24 10:51 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-24 11:50 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-25 1:17 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-25 8:31 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-25 10:57 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-25 11:42 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-25 11:46 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-28 12:43 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-28 20:57 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-29 7:17 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-29 23:07 ` Andrew Morton
2018-05-31 10:10 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-31 10:44 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-31 15:23 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-31 18:47 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-01 1:21 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-01 8:04 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-01 15:28 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-01 21:11 ` Andrew Morton
2018-06-04 7:04 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-04 10:41 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2018-06-04 11:22 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-04 11:30 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-06 9:02 ` David Rientjes
2018-06-06 13:37 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-06 18:44 ` David Rientjes
2018-05-29 7:17 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-29 8:16 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-29 14:33 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-05-29 17:18 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-29 17:28 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-31 16:31 ` [PATCH] mm, memcg, oom: fix pre-mature allocation failures kbuild test robot
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-03-22 10:51 [PATCH] mm,oom: Don't call schedule_timeout_killable() with oom_lock held Tetsuo Handa
2018-03-22 11:45 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-22 13:16 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-01-22 13:46 Tetsuo Handa
2018-01-23 8:38 ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-23 12:07 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-01-23 12:42 ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-24 13:28 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-02-13 11:58 ` Tetsuo Handa
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=30c750b4-2c65-5737-3172-bddc666d0a8f@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).