On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:42:19PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 05-11-14 14:31:00, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 05-11-14 08:02:47, Tejun Heo wrote: > [...] > > > Also, why isn't this part of > > > oom_killer_disable/enable()? The way they're implemented is really > > > silly now. It just sets a flag and returns whether there's a > > > currently running instance or not. How were these even useful? > > > Why can't you just make disable/enable to what they were supposed to > > > do from the beginning? > > > > Because then we would block all the potential allocators coming from > > workqueues or kernel threads which are not frozen yet rather than fail > > the allocation. > > After thinking about this more it would be doable by using trylock in > the allocation oom path. I will respin the patch. The API will be > cleaner this way. In disable, block new invocations of OOM killer and then drain the in-progress ones. This is a common pattern, isn't it? -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>