On Tue 05-12-17 22:17:27, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I do understand the upsides you're advocating for - although you > > > haven't quantified them. They're just not worth the downsides. > > > > OK, fair enough. Let's drop the patch then. There is no _strong_ > > justification for it and what I've seen as "nice to have" is indeed > > really hard to quantify and not really worth merging without a full > > consensus. > > Dropping "mm,oom: move last second allocation to inside the OOM killer" > means dropping "mm,oom: remove oom_lock serialization from the OOM reaper" > together, right? No, I believe that we can drop the lock even without this patch. This will need more investigation though. > The latter patch helped mitigating > schedule_timeout_killable(1) lockup problem though... > > Also, what is the alternative for "mm,oom: use ALLOC_OOM for OOM victim's > last second allocation" ? I proposed "mm, oom: task_will_free_mem(current) > should ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP for once." and rejected by you. I also proposed > "mm,oom: Set ->signal->oom_mm to all thread groups sharing the victim's mm." > and rejected by you. Yes, and so far I am not really sure we have to care all that much. I haven't seen any real world workload actually hitting this condition. -- 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>
