Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754928AbcCWMH1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:07:27 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:36659 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752917AbcCWMHT (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:07:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:07:16 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: rientjes@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@suse.de, oleg@redhat.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, vdavydov@virtuozzo.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] oom reaper v6 Message-ID: <20160323120716.GE7059@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1458644426-22973-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <201603232011.HDI05246.FFMLtVOHOQJFOS@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201603232011.HDI05246.FFMLtVOHOQJFOS@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1870 Lines: 47 On Wed 23-03-16 20:11:35, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > David Rientjes wrote: [...] > > Tetsuo, have you been able to run your previous test cases on top of this > > version and do you have any concerns about it or possible extensions that > > could be made? > > > > I think [PATCH 3/9] [PATCH 4/9] [PATCH 8/9] will be mostly reverted. > My concerns and possible extensions are explained in > > Re: [PATCH 6/5] oom, oom_reaper: disable oom_reaper for oom_kill_allocating_task > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201603152015.JAE86937.VFOLtQFOFJOSHM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp I believe issues you have raised there are a matter for further discussion as they are potential improvements of the existing functionality rather than fixing a regression of the current code. > . Regarding "[PATCH 4/9] mm, oom_reaper: report success/failure", > debug_show_all_locks() may not be safe > > commit 856848737bd944c1 "lockdep: fix debug_show_all_locks()" > commit 82a1fcb90287052a "softlockup: automatically detect hung TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks" Let me ask again. What exactly is unsafe about calling debug_show_all_locks here? It is true that 856848737bd944c1 has changed debug_show_all_locks to ignore running tasks which limits this functionality to some degree but I still think this might be useful. Proposed alternatives were way too verbose and complex on its own. This is something to be further discussed as well, though. > and showing traces might be more useful. > (A discussion for making printk() completely async is in progress.) > > But we don't have time to update this series before merge window for 4.6 closes. > We want to send current patchset as is for now, don't we? So, please go ahead. I am happy that we are on the same patch here. > My other concerns about OOM handling: Let's stick to oom reaper here, please. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs