[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141105170111.GG14386@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 12:01:11 -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 11:54:28AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Still not following. How do you want to detect an on-going OOM without
> > any interface around out_of_memory?
>
> I thought you were using oom_killer_allowed_start() outside OOM path.
> Ugh.... why is everything weirdly structured? oom_killer_disabled
> implies that oom killer may fail, right? Why is
> __alloc_pages_slowpath() checking it directly? If whether oom killing
> failed or not is relevant to its users, make out_of_memory() return an
> error code. There's no reason for the exclusion detail to leak out of
> the oom killer proper. The only interface should be disable/enable
> and whether oom killing failed or not.
And what's implemented is wrong. What happens if oom killing is
already in progress and then a task blocks trying to write-lock the
rwsem and then that task is selected as the OOM victim? disable()
call must be able to fail.
--
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