[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YVxnUZzR+rjRrGU3@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 16:55:13 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg v3] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the
limit of dying tasks
On Tue 05-10-21 16:52:31, Vasily Averin wrote:
> v3: no functional changes, just improved patch description
You haven't addressed my review feedback regarding the oom invocation.
Let me paste it here again:
: > @@ -1607,7 +1607,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
: > * A few threads which were not waiting at mutex_lock_killable() can
: > * fail to bail out. Therefore, check again after holding oom_lock.
: > */
: > - ret = should_force_charge() || out_of_memory(&oc);
: > + ret = task_is_dying() || out_of_memory(&oc);
:
: task_is_dying check will prevent the oom killer for dying tasks. There
: is an additional bail out at out_of_memory layer. These checks are now
: leading to a completely different behavior. Currently we simply use
: "unlimited" reserves and therefore we do not have to kill any task. Now
: the charge fails without using all reclaim measures. So I believe we
: should drop those checks for memcg oom paths. I have to think about this
: some more because I might be missing some other side effects.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists