[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180816063509.GS32645@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 08:35:09 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm: rework memcg kernel stack accounting
On Wed 15-08-18 13:20:44, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> This is completely backwards.
>
> We respect the limits unless there is a *really* strong reason not
> to. The only situations I can think of is during OOM kills to avoid
> memory deadlocks and during packet reception for correctness issues
> (and because the network stack has its own way to reclaim memory).
>
> Relying on some vague future allocations in the process's lifetime to
> fail in order to contain it is crappy and unreliable. And unwinding
> the stack allocation isn't too much complexity to warrant breaking the
> containment rules here, even if it were several steps. But it looks
> like it's nothing more than a 'goto free_stack'.
>
> Please just fix this.
Thinking about it some more (sorry I should have done that in my
previous reply already) I do agree with Johannes. We should really back
off as soon as possible rather than rely on a future action because
this is quite subtle and prone to unexpected behavior.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists