On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 08:35:09AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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. Ok, no problems, I'll address this in v2. Thanks!
