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 E04FE6B0003 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 07:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f70.google.com with SMTP id s84-v6so17566973oig.17 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 04:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (www262.sakura.ne.jp. [202.181.97.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i41-v6si7843940ote.178.2018.06.04.04.30.33 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Jun 2018 04:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Don't call schedule_timeout_killable() with oom_lock held. 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> <20180604112212.GJ19202@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Tetsuo Handa Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 20:30:17 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180604112212.GJ19202@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 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 2018/06/04 20:22, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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? > Yes, for it is a regression fix which I expected to be in time for 4.17. I want to apply it before OOM killer code gets complicated by cgroup-aware OOM killer.