[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180621073646.GB10465@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:36:46 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge
path
On Wed 20-06-18 15:38:36, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 05:31:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > * Please note that mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize might fail to find a
> > * victim and then we have rely on mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize otherwise
> > * we would fall back to the global oom killer in pagefault_out_of_memory
>
> I can't quite figure out what this paragraph is trying to
> say. "oom_synchronize might fail [...] and we have to rely on
> oom_synchronize". Hm?
heh, vim autocompletion + a stale comment from the previous
implementation which ENOMEM on the fail path. I went with
* Please note that mem_cgroup_out_of_memory might fail to find a
* victim and then we have to bail out from the charge path.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists