archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <>
To: Tetsuo Handa <>
Cc: David Rientjes <>,
	Roman Gushchin <>,, Andrew Morton <>,
	LKML <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] oom: rework oom_reaper vs. exit_mmap handoff
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 11:16:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Wed 14-11-18 18:46:13, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> There is always an invisible lock called "scheduling priority". You can't
> leave the MMF_OOM_SKIP to the exit path. Your approach is not ready for
> handling the worst case.

And that problem is all over the memory reclaim. You can get starved
to death and block other resources. And the memory reclaim is not the
only one. This is a fundamental issue of the locking without priority
inheritance and other real time techniques.

> Nacked-by: Tetsuo Handa <>

OK, if your whole point is to block any changes into this area unless
it is your solution to be merged then I guess I will just push patches
through with your explicit Nack on them. Your feedback was far fetched
at many times has distracted the discussion way too often. This is
especially sad because your testing and review was really helpful at
times. I do not really have energy to argue the same set of arguments
over and over again.

You have expressed unwillingness to understand the overall
picture several times. You do not care about a long term maintenance
burden of this code which is quite tricky already and refuse to
understand the cost/benefit part.

If this series works for the workload reported by David I will simply
push it through and let Andrew decide. If there is a lack of feedback
I will just keep it around because it seems that most users do not care
about these corner cases anyway.
Michal Hocko

  reply	other threads:[~2018-11-14 10:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-25  8:24 [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] oom: rework oom_reaper vs. exit_mmap handoff Michal Hocko
2018-10-25  8:24 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] mm, oom: rework mmap_exit vs. oom_reaper synchronization Michal Hocko
2018-10-25  8:24 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] mm, oom: keep retrying the oom_reap operation as long as there is substantial memory left Michal Hocko
2018-10-25  8:24 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] mm, oom: hand over MMF_OOM_SKIP to exit path if it is guranteed to finish Michal Hocko
2018-10-30  4:45   ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-10-30  6:31     ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-30  9:47       ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-10-30 11:39         ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-30 12:02           ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-10-30 12:10             ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-30 13:57               ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-10-30 14:23                 ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-08  9:32 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] oom: rework oom_reaper vs. exit_mmap handoff Michal Hocko
2018-11-14  9:46   ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-11-14 10:16     ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2018-11-15  9:54       ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-11-15 11:36         ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-16 10:06           ` 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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).