From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754466AbcBBWzw (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:55:52 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169]:32914 "EHLO mail-pf0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751120AbcBBWzv (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:55:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:55:49 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Tetsuo Handa cc: mhocko@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com, hughd@google.com, andrea@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: introduce oom reaper In-Reply-To: <201602022048.GCJ04176.tOFFSVFHLMJOQO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Message-ID: References: <1452094975-551-2-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <20160128214247.GD621@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160202085758.GE19910@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201602022048.GCJ04176.tOFFSVFHLMJOQO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Maybe we all agree with introducing OOM reaper without queuing, but I do > want to see a guarantee for scheduling for next OOM-kill operation before > trying to build a reliable queuing chain. > The race can be fixed in two ways which I've already enumerated, but the scheduling issue is tangential: the oom_reaper kthread is going to run; increasing it's priority will only interfere with other innocent processes that are not attached to the oom memcg hierarchy, have disjoint cpuset mems, or are happily allocating from mempolicy nodes with free memory.