On Thu 31-05-18 19:10:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/05/30 8:07, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:17:41 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> I suggest applying > >>> this patch first, and then fix "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patch. > >> > >> Well, I hope the whole pile gets merged in the upcoming merge window > >> rather than stall even more. > > > > I'm more inclined to drop it all. David has identified significant > > shortcomings and I'm not seeing a way of addressing those shortcomings > > in a backward-compatible fashion. Therefore there is no way forward > > at present. > > > > Can we apply my patch as-is first? No. As already explained before. Sprinkling new sleeps without a strong reason is not acceptable. The issue you are seeing is pretty artificial and as such doesn're really warrant an immediate fix. We should rather go with a well thought trhough fix. In other words we should simply drop the sleep inside the oom_lock for starter unless it causes some really unexpected behavior change. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
