From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] OOM, PM: OOM killed task shouldn't escape PM suspend Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 14:42:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20141105134219.GD4527@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1413876435-11720-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <2156351.pWp6MNRoWm@vostro.rjw.lan> <20141021141159.GE9415@dhcp22.suse.cz> <4766859.KSKPTm3b0x@vostro.rjw.lan> <20141021142939.GG9415@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20141104192705.GA22163@htj.dyndns.org> <20141105124620.GB4527@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20141105130247.GA14386@htj.dyndns.org> <20141105133100.GC4527@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141105133100.GC4527@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , Cong Wang , David Rientjes , Oleg Nesterov , LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux PM list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed 05-11-14 14:31:00, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 05-11-14 08:02:47, Tejun Heo wrote: [...] > > Also, why isn't this part of > > oom_killer_disable/enable()? The way they're implemented is really > > silly now. It just sets a flag and returns whether there's a > > currently running instance or not. How were these even useful? > > Why can't you just make disable/enable to what they were supposed to > > do from the beginning? > > Because then we would block all the potential allocators coming from > workqueues or kernel threads which are not frozen yet rather than fail > the allocation. After thinking about this more it would be doable by using trylock in the allocation oom path. I will respin the patch. The API will be cleaner this way. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org