Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 31-10-17 21:42:23, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > While both have some merit, the first reason is mostly historical > > > because we have the explicit locking now and it is really unlikely that > > > the memory would be available right after we have given up trying. > > > Last attempt allocation makes some sense of course but considering that > > > the oom victim selection is quite an expensive operation which can take > > > a considerable amount of time it makes much more sense to retry the > > > allocation after the most expensive part rather than before. Therefore > > > move the last attempt right before we are trying to kill an oom victim > > > to rule potential races when somebody could have freed a lot of memory > > > in the meantime. This will reduce the time window for potentially > > > pre-mature OOM killing considerably. > > > > But this is about "doing last second allocation attempt after selecting > > an OOM victim". This is not about "allowing OOM victims to try ALLOC_OOM > > before selecting next OOM victim" which is the actual problem I'm trying > > to deal with. > > then split it into two. First make the general case and then add a more > sophisticated on top. Dealing with multiple issues at once is what makes > all those brain cells suffer. I'm failing to understand. I was dealing with single issue at once. The single issue is "MMF_OOM_SKIP prematurely prevents OOM victims from trying ALLOC_OOM before selecting next OOM victims". Then, what are the general case and a more sophisticated? I wonder what other than "MMF_OOM_SKIP should allow OOM victims to try ALLOC_OOM for once before selecting next OOM victims" can exist... -- 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>
