[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141105163956.GD28226@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 17:39:56 +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 11:29:29, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Michal.
>
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:01:15PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I am not sure I am following. With the latest patch OOM path is no
> > longer blocked by the PM (aka oom_killer_disable()). Allocations simply
> > fail if the read_trylock fails.
> > oom_killer_disable is moved before tasks are frozen and it will wait for
> > all on-going OOM killers on the write lock. OOM killer is enabled again
> > on the resume path.
>
> Sure, but why are we exposing new interfaces? Can't we just make
> oom_killer_disable() first set the disable flag and wait for the
> on-going ones to finish (and make the function fail if it gets chosen
> as an OOM victim)?
Still not following. How do you want to detect an on-going OOM without
any interface around out_of_memory?
--
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