On Thu 05-07-18 16:46:21, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 14:35:20 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The oom reaper ensures forward progress by setting MMF_OOM_SKIP itself if > > it cannot reap an mm. This can happen for a variety of reasons, > > including: > > > > - the inability to grab mm->mmap_sem in a sufficient amount of time, > > > > - when the mm has blockable mmu notifiers that could cause the oom reaper > > to stall indefinitely, > > > > but we can also add a third when the oom reaper can "reap" an mm but doing > > so is unlikely to free any amount of memory: > > > > - when the mm's memory is mostly mlocked. > > Michal has been talking about making the oom-reaper handle mlocked > memory. Where are we at with that? I didn't get to mlocked memory yet because blockable mmu notifiers are more important. And I've already posted patch for that and it is under discussion [1]. Mlocked memory is next. [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180627074421.GF32348@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Btw. I still hate this patch and making any timeout user defineable. It is a wrong approach and my nack to this patch still applies. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
