On Tue 04-04-17 08:10:03, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > So the primary question is what are you trying to achieve? > > Ideally it would be nice to bring back patches to make the OOM > handling lockup free. However, presuming that's not feasible then at > least it would be nice if we could get some minimal set of patches > that: > > - Isn't too scary to backport. > - Handles the low hanging fruit. > - Is fairly self contained. oom_reaper as introduced by aac4536355496 and 4 follow up patches should be a good yet not too scary to start. > 1. It would be nice if other users of linuxstable could benefit. well most of the oom fixes are rather subtle and it took quite some time to do the properly so I am not really sure we want to take risk. I would rather handle those issues and backport specific fixes for the issue. > 2. I know the above patches are not as ideal as the work that has > happened upstream, so of course I'd prefer to get the upstream > solution. > > 3. I always appreciate being closer to the upstream solution which > means we get more people looking at the code and more people testing > the code. I can hardly help you more than offer to use the upstream code. I fully realize that this is hard and I am facing similar issues with enterprise kernel @Suse but so far I have seen OOMs behaving mostly OK except for extreme cases which usually do not happen enough to take the risk and backport non-trivial changes to the stable trees. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs