[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YbIzOR13uPOI5EMB@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 17:47:53 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
willy@...radead.org, hannes@...xchg.org, guro@...com,
riel@...riel.com, minchan@...nel.org, kirill@...temov.name,
aarcange@...hat.com, christian@...uner.io, hch@...radead.org,
oleg@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com,
shakeelb@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org, christian.brauner@...ntu.com,
fweimer@...hat.com, jengelh@...i.de, timmurray@...gle.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/3] mm: drop MMF_OOM_SKIP from exit_mmap
On Thu 09-12-21 08:24:04, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 1:12 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> >
> > Do we want this on top?
>
> As we discussed in this thread
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/YY4snVzZZZYhbigV@dhcp22.suse.cz,
> __oom_reap_task_mm in exit_mmap allows oom-reaper/process_mrelease to
> unmap pages in parallel with exit_mmap without blocking each other.
> Removal of __oom_reap_task_mm from exit_mmap prevents this parallelism
> and has a negative impact on performance. So the conclusion of that
> thread I thought was to keep that part. My understanding is that we
> also wanted to remove MMF_OOM_SKIP as a follow-up patch but
> __oom_reap_task_mm would stay.
OK, then we were talking past each other, I am afraid. I really wanted
to get rid of this oom specific stuff from exit_mmap. It was there out
of necessity. With a proper locking we can finally get rid of the crud.
As I've said previously oom reaping has never been a hot path.
If we really want to optimize this path then I would much rather see a
generic solution which would allow to move the write lock down after
unmap_vmas. That would require oom reaper to be able to handle mlocked
memory.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists