On Wed 12-02-25 02:57:07, Chen Ridong wrote:
> From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Unlike memcg OOM, which is relatively common, global OOM events are rare
> and typically indicate that the entire system is under severe memory
> pressure. The commit ade81479c7dd ("memcg: fix soft lockup in the OOM
> process") added the touch_softlockup_watchdog in the global OOM handler to
> suppess the soft lockup issues. However, while this change can suppress
> soft lockup warnings, it does not address RCU stalls, which can still be
> detected and may cause unnecessary disturbances. Simply remove the
> modification from the global OOM handler.
>
> Fixes: ade81479c7dd ("memcg: fix soft lockup in the OOM process")
But this is not really fixing anything, is it? While this doesn't
address a potential RCU stall it doesn't address any actual problem.
So why do we want to do this?
> Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/oom_kill.c | 8 +-------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 25923cfec9c6..2d8b27604ef8 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -44,7 +44,6 @@
> #include <linux/init.h>
> #include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
> #include <linux/cred.h>
> -#include <linux/nmi.h>
>
> #include <asm/tlb.h>
> #include "internal.h"
> @@ -431,15 +430,10 @@ static void dump_tasks(struct oom_control *oc)
> mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(oc->memcg, dump_task, oc);
> else {
> struct task_struct *p;
> - int i = 0;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> - for_each_process(p) {
> - /* Avoid potential softlockup warning */
> - if ((++i & 1023) == 0)
> - touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> + for_each_process(p)
> dump_task(p, oc);
> - }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> }
> }
> --
> 2.34.1
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
