On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Yes, quite a bit in testing. > > > > One oom kill shows the system to be oom: > > > > [22999.488705] Node 0 Normal free:90484kB min:90500kB ... > > [22999.488711] Node 1 Normal free:91536kB min:91948kB ... > > > > followed up by one or more unnecessary oom kills showing the oom killer > > racing with memory freeing of the victim: > > > > [22999.510329] Node 0 Normal free:229588kB min:90500kB ... > > [22999.510334] Node 1 Normal free:600036kB min:91948kB ... > > > > The patch is absolutely required for us to prevent continuous oom killing > > of processes after a single process has been oom killed and its memory is > > in the process of being freed. > > OK, could you play with the patch/idea suggested in > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170615122031.GL1486@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx? > I cannot, I am trying to unblock a stable kernel release to my production that is obviously fixed with this patch and cannot experiment with uncompiled and untested patches that introduce otherwise unnecessary locking into the __mmput() path and is based on speculation rather than hard data that __mmput() for some reason stalls for the oom victim's mm. I was hoping that this fix could make it in time for 4.12 since 4.12 kills 1-4 processes unnecessarily for each oom condition and then can review any tested solution you may propose at a later time. -- 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>
