[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141105134219.GD4527@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 14:42:19 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] OOM, PM: OOM killed task shouldn't escape PM suspend
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.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists