Hello, Michal. On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:01:15PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > I am not sure I am following. With the latest patch OOM path is no > longer blocked by the PM (aka oom_killer_disable()). Allocations simply > fail if the read_trylock fails. > oom_killer_disable is moved before tasks are frozen and it will wait for > all on-going OOM killers on the write lock. OOM killer is enabled again > on the resume path. Sure, but why are we exposing new interfaces? Can't we just make oom_killer_disable() first set the disable flag and wait for the on-going ones to finish (and make the function fail if it gets chosen as an OOM victim)? It's weird to expose extra stuff on top. Why are we doing that? Thanks. -- 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>