On Tue 04-10-16 11:00:05, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > Recent changes in the oom proper allows for that finally, I believe. Now > that all the oom victims are reapable we are no longer depending on > ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS because the memory held by the victim is reclaimed > asynchronously. A partial access to memory reserves should be sufficient > just to guarantee that the oom victim is not starved due to other > memory consumers. This also means that we do not have to pretend to be > conservative and give access to memory reserves only to one thread from > the process at the time. This is patch 1. > > Patch 2 is a simple cleanup which turns TIF_MEMDIE users to tsk_is_oom_victim > which is process rather than thread centric. None of those callers really > requires to be thread aware AFAICS. > > The tricky part then is exit_oom_victim vs. oom_killer_disable because > TIF_MEMDIE acted as a token there so we had a way to count threads from > the process. It didn't work 100% reliably and had its own issues but we > have to replace it with something which doesn't rely on counting threads > but rather find a moment when all threads have reached steady state in > do_exit. This is what patch 3 does and I would really appreciate if Oleg > could double check my thinking there. I am also CCing Al on that one > because I am moving exit_io_context up in do_exit right before exit_notify. It became apparent that the last part was wrong after Oleg's review. I definitely want to come up with something that works eventually. I am just wondering whether patches 1-2 are worth accepting without the rest. I fully realize those patches are less attractive when TIF_MEMDIE stays but I would argue that reducing the TIF_MEMDIE users will make the code slightly better and easier to understand. What do you think? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>