[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1509181704250.13660@east.gentwo.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:07:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Kyle Walker <kwalker@...hat.com>
cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mhocko@...e.cz, rientjes@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
vdavydov@...allels.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Stanislav Kozina <skozina@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill.c: don't kill TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Kyle Walker wrote:
> I do like the idea of not stalling completely in an oom just because the
> first attempt didn't go so well. Is there any possibility of simply having
> our cake and eating it too? Specifically, omitting TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> tasks
> as low-hanging fruit and allowing the oom to continue in the event that the
> first attempt stalls?
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks should not be sleeping that long and they
*should react* in a reasonable timeframe. There is an alternative API for
those cases that cannot. Typically this is a write that is stalling. If we
kill the process then its pointless to wait on the write to complete. See
https://lwn.net/Articles/288056/
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-task-killable/
--
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