On Wed 15-08-18 13:20:44, Johannes Weiner wrote: [...] > This is completely backwards. > > We respect the limits unless there is a *really* strong reason not > to. The only situations I can think of is during OOM kills to avoid > memory deadlocks and during packet reception for correctness issues > (and because the network stack has its own way to reclaim memory). > > Relying on some vague future allocations in the process's lifetime to > fail in order to contain it is crappy and unreliable. And unwinding > the stack allocation isn't too much complexity to warrant breaking the > containment rules here, even if it were several steps. But it looks > like it's nothing more than a 'goto free_stack'. > > Please just fix this. Thinking about it some more (sorry I should have done that in my previous reply already) I do agree with Johannes. We should really back off as soon as possible rather than rely on a future action because this is quite subtle and prone to unexpected behavior. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
