On Thu 26-03-15 11:17:46, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 02:31:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > > @@ -795,27 +728,21 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct zonelist *zonelist, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > */
> > > void pagefault_out_of_memory(void)
> > > {
> > > - struct zonelist *zonelist;
> > > -
> > > - down_read(&oom_sem);
> > > if (mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize(true))
> > > - goto unlock;
> > > + return;
> >
> > OK, so we are back to what David has asked previously. We do not need
> > the lock for memcg and oom_killer_disabled because we know that no tasks
> > (except for potential oom victim) are lurking around at the time
> > oom_killer_disable() is called. So I guess we want to stick a comment
> > into mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize before we check for oom_killer_disabled.
>
> I would prefer everybody that sets TIF_MEMDIE and kills a task to hold
> the lock, including memcg. Simplicity is one thing, but also a global
> OOM kill might not even be necessary when it's racing with the memcg.
sure I am find with that.
> > After those are fixed, feel free to add
> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>