On 20.10.2021 15:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 20-10-21 15:13:46, Vasily Averin wrote:
>> ToDo: should we keep task_is_dying() in mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() ?
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> mm/memcontrol.c | 20 +++++++-------------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 6da5020a8656..74a7379dbac1 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ enum res_type {
>> iter != NULL; \
>> iter = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, iter, NULL))
>>
>> -static inline bool should_force_charge(void)
>> +static inline bool task_is_dying(void)
>> {
>> return tsk_is_oom_victim(current) || fatal_signal_pending(current) ||
>> (current->flags & PF_EXITING);
>> @@ -1575,7 +1575,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>> * A few threads which were not waiting at mutex_lock_killable() can
>> * fail to bail out. Therefore, check again after holding oom_lock.
>> */
>> - ret = should_force_charge() || out_of_memory(&oc);
>> + ret = task_is_dying() || out_of_memory(&oc);
>
> Why are you keeping the task_is_dying check here? IIRC I have already
> pointed out that out_of_memory already has some means to do a bypass
> when needed.
It was a misunderstanding.
I've been waiting for your final decision.
I have no good arguments "pro" or strong objection "contra".
However, I prefer to keep task_is_dying() so as not to touch other tasks unnecessarily.
I can't justify why its removal is necessary,
but on the other hand, it shouldn't break anything.
I can drop it if you think it's necessary.
Thank you,
Vasily Averin
