Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 25-05-18 20:46:21, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Fri 25-05-18 19:57:32, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > What is wrong with the folliwing? should_reclaim_retry should be a > > > > > natural reschedule point. PF_WQ_WORKER is a special case which needs a > > > > > stronger rescheduling policy. Doing that unconditionally seems more > > > > > straightforward than depending on a zone being a good candidate for a > > > > > further reclaim. > > > > > > > > Where is schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1) for !PF_KTHREAD threads? > > > > > > Re-read what I've said. > > > > Please show me as a complete patch. Then, I will test your patch. > > So how about we start as simple as the following? If we _really_ need to > touch should_reclaim_retry then it should be done in a separate patch > with some numbers/tracing data backing that story. This patch is incorrect that it ignores the bug in Roman's "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patch in linux-next. I suggest applying this patch first, and then fix "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patch.
