From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f70.google.com (mail-oi0-f70.google.com [209.85.218.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F27C6B0003 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 06:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f70.google.com with SMTP id e2-v6so17904300oii.20 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 03:41:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (www262.sakura.ne.jp. [202.181.97.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k77-v6si5906469oib.353.2018.06.04.03.41.17 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Jun 2018 03:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Don't call schedule_timeout_killable() with oom_lock held. References: <20180525083118.GI11881@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201805251957.EJJ09809.LFJHFFVOOSQOtM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <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> From: Tetsuo Handa Message-ID: <30c750b4-2c65-5737-3172-bddc666d0a8f@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 19:41:01 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180604070419.GG19202@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton 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 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.