On Fri 03-08-18 07:05:54, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/07/31 14:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 31-07-18 06:01:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> On 2018/07/31 4:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> Since should_reclaim_retry() should be a natural reschedule point,
> >>> let's do the short sleep for PF_WQ_WORKER threads unconditionally in
> >>> order to guarantee that other pending work items are started. This will
> >>> workaround this problem and it is less fragile than hunting down when
> >>> the sleep is missed. E.g. we used to have a sleeping point in the oom
> >>> path but this has been removed recently because it caused other issues.
> >>> Having a single sleeping point is more robust.
> >>
> >> linux.git has not removed the sleeping point in the OOM path yet. Since removing the
> >> sleeping point in the OOM path can mitigate CVE-2016-10723, please do so immediately.
> >
> > is this an {Acked,Reviewed,Tested}-by?
> >
> > I will send the patch to Andrew if the patch is ok.
> >
> >> (And that change will conflict with Roman's cgroup aware OOM killer patchset. But it
> >> should be easy to rebase.)
> >
> > That is still a WIP so I would lose sleep over it.
> >
>
> Now that Roman's cgroup aware OOM killer patchset will be dropped from linux-next.git ,
> linux-next.git will get the sleeping point removed. Please send this patch to linux-next.git .
I still haven't heard any explicit confirmation that the patch works for
your workload. Should I beg for it? Or you simply do not want to have
your stamp on the patch? If yes, I can live with that but this playing
hide and catch is not really a lot of fun.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
