[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170801122344.GA8457@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 13:23:44 +0100
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm, oom: do not grant oom victims full memory
reserves access
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:16:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 27-07-17 11:03:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Hi,
> > this is a part of a larger series I posted back in Oct last year [1]. I
> > have dropped patch 3 because it was incorrect and patch 4 is not
> > applicable without it.
> >
> > The primary reason to apply patch 1 is to remove a risk of the complete
> > memory depletion by oom victims. While this is a theoretical risk right
> > now there is a demand for memcg aware oom killer which might kill all
> > processes inside a memcg which can be a lot of tasks. That would make
> > the risk quite real.
> >
> > This issue is addressed by limiting access to memory reserves. We no
> > longer use TIF_MEMDIE to grant the access and use tsk_is_oom_victim
> > instead. See Patch 1 for more details. Patch 2 is a trivial follow up
> > cleanup.
>
> Any comments, concerns? Can we merge it?
I've rebased the cgroup-aware OOM killer and ran some tests.
Everything works well.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists