Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > But since Michal is still worrying that adding a single synchronization > > > point into the OOM path is risky (without showing a real life example > > > where lock_killable() in the coldest OOM path hurts), changes made by > > > this patch will be enabled only when oom_compat_mode=0 kernel command line > > > parameter is specified so that users can test whether their workloads get > > > hurt by this patch. > > > > > Nacked with passion. This is absolutely hideous. First of all there is > > absolutely no need for the kernel command line. That is just trying to > > dance around the fact that you are not able to argue for the change > > and bring reasonable arguments on the table. We definitely do not want > > two subtly different modes for the oom handling. Secondly, and repeatedly, > > you are squashing multiple changes into a single patch. And finally this > > is too big of a hammer for something that even doesn't solve the problem > > for PREEMPTIVE kernels which are free to schedule regardless of the > > sleep or the reclaim retry you are so passion about. > > So, where is your version? Offload to a kernel thread like the OOM reaper? > Get rid of oom_lock? Just rejecting my proposal makes no progress. > Did you come up with some idea? Even CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, as far as I tested, v2 patch significantly reduces stalls than now. I believe there is no valid reason not to test my v2 patch at linux-next.
