[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141105154436.GB14386@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:44:36 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
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, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:42:19PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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.
In disable, block new invocations of OOM killer and then drain the
in-progress ones. This is a common pattern, isn't it?
--
tejun
--
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