Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754552AbdDDP3i (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:29:38 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44827 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753575AbdDDP3g (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:29:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:29:21 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Doug Anderson Cc: Greg KH , arve@android.com, riandrews@android.com, Todd Kjos , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] binder: Don't require the binder lock when killed in binder_thread_read() Message-ID: <20170404152921.GO15132@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170404074028.GD15132@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1581 Lines: 41 On Tue 04-04-17 08:10:03, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > So the primary question is what are you trying to achieve? > > Ideally it would be nice to bring back patches to make the OOM > handling lockup free. However, presuming that's not feasible then at > least it would be nice if we could get some minimal set of patches > that: > > - Isn't too scary to backport. > - Handles the low hanging fruit. > - Is fairly self contained. oom_reaper as introduced by aac4536355496 and 4 follow up patches should be a good yet not too scary to start. > 1. It would be nice if other users of linuxstable could benefit. well most of the oom fixes are rather subtle and it took quite some time to do the properly so I am not really sure we want to take risk. I would rather handle those issues and backport specific fixes for the issue. > 2. I know the above patches are not as ideal as the work that has > happened upstream, so of course I'd prefer to get the upstream > solution. > > 3. I always appreciate being closer to the upstream solution which > means we get more people looking at the code and more people testing > the code. I can hardly help you more than offer to use the upstream code. I fully realize that this is hard and I am facing similar issues with enterprise kernel @Suse but so far I have seen OOMs behaving mostly OK except for extreme cases which usually do not happen enough to take the risk and backport non-trivial changes to the stable trees. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs