On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 01:41:47PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 08-05-18 13:46:37, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > Commit e27be240df53 ("mm: memcg: make sure memory.events is > > uptodate when waking pollers") converted most of memcg event > > counters to per-memcg atomics, which made them less confusing > > for a user. The "oom_kill" counter remained untouched, so now > > it behaves differently than other counters (including "oom"). > > This adds nothing but confusion. > > > > Let's fix this by adding the MEMCG_OOM_KILL event, and follow > > the MEMCG_OOM approach. This also removes a hack from > > count_memcg_event_mm(), introduced earlier specially for the > > OOM_KILL counter. > > I agree that the current OOM_KILL is confusing. But do we really need > another memcg_memory_event_mm helper used for only one counter rather > than reuse memcg_memory_event. __oom_kill_process doesn't have the memcg > but nothing should really prevent us from adding the context > (oom_control) there, no? Not sure, that I follow. oom_control has memcg pointer, but it's a pointer to a cgroup, where OOM happened. In particular, it's NULL for a system-wide OOM. And we do send the OOM_KILL event to the cgroup, which actually contains the process. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html