On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 04:00:09PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > None that I am currently aware of, I'll continue to try them out. I'd > > > suggest just dropping the stable@xxxxxxxxxx from the whole series though > > > unless there is another report of such a problem that people are running > > > into. > > > > The series has long been merged, how do we drop stable@xxxxxxxxxx from > > it? > > > > You said you have informed stable to not merge these patches until further > notice, I'd suggest simply avoid ever merging the whole series into a > stable kernel since the problem isn't serious enough. Marking changes > that do "goto nomem" seem fine to mark for stable, though. These are followup fixes for the series that is upstream but didn't go to stable. I truly have no idea what you are talking about. > > > We've had this patch internally since we started using memcg, it has > > > avoided some unnecessary oom killing. > > > > Do you have quantified data that OOM kills are reduced over a longer > > sampling period? How many kills are skipped? How many of them are > > deferred temporarily but the VM ended up having to kill something > > anyway? > > On the scale that we run memcg, we would see it daily in automated testing > primarily because we panic the machine for memcg oom conditions where > there are no killable processes. It would typically manifest by two > processes that are allocating memory in a memcg; one is oom killed, is > allowed to allocate, handles its SIGKILL, exits and frees its memory and > the second process which is oom disabled races with the uncharge and is > oom disabled so the machine panics. So why don't you implement proper synchronization instead of putting these random checks all over the map to make the race window just small enough to not matter most of the time? > The upstream kernel of course doesn't panic in such a condition but if the > same scenario were to have happened, the second process would be > unnecessarily oom killed because it raced with the uncharge of the first > victim and it had exited before the scan of processes in the memcg oom > killer could detect it and defer. So this patch definitely does prevent > unnecessary oom killing when run at such a large scale that we do. If you are really bothered by this race, then please have OOM kill invocations wait for any outstanding TIF_MEMDIE tasks in the same context. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html