On Thu 24-05-18 19:51:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Look. I am fed up with this discussion. You are fiddling with the code
> > and moving hacks around with a lot of hand waving. Rahter than trying to
> > look at the underlying problem. Your patch completely ignores PREEMPT as
> > I've mentioned in previous versions.
>
> I'm not ignoring PREEMPT. To fix this OOM lockup problem properly, as much
> efforts as fixing Spectre/Meltdown problems will be required. This patch is
> a mitigation for regression introduced by fixing CVE-2018-1000200. Nothing
> is good with deferring this patch.
>
> > I would be OK with removing the sleep from the out_of_memory path based
> > on your argumentation that we have a _proper_ synchronization with the
> > exit path now.
>
> Such attempt should be made in a separate patch.
>
> You suggested removing this sleep from my patch without realizing that
> we need explicit schedule_timeout_*() for PF_WQ_WORKER threads.
And that sleep is in should_reclaim_retry. If that is not sufficient it
should be addressed rather than spilling more of that crud all over the
place.
> My patch
> is trying to be as conservative/safe as possible (for easier backport)
> while reducing the risk of falling into OOM lockup.
And it adss more crud
> I worry that you are completely overlooking
>
> char *fmt, ...)
> */
> if (!mutex_trylock(&oom_lock)) {
> *did_some_progress = 1;
> - schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> return NULL;
> }
>
>
> part in this patch.
I am not. But it doesn't really make much sense to convince you if you
are not reading what I am writing. I am done with this thread.
Discussion is just a waste of time.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
