Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJWu+oqT0oPrEL4mPnWvF3Zt-psg2DWGj9Nrr+fda2JYFzRmqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180404115310.6c69e7b9@gandalf.local.home> <20180404120002.6561a5bc@gandalf.local.home>
 <CAJWu+orC-1JDYHDTQU+DFckGq5ZnXBCCq9wLG-gNK0Nc4-vo7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180404121326.6eca4fa3@gandalf.local.home> <CAJWu+op5-sr=2xWDYcd7FDBeMtrM9Zm96BgGzb4Q31UGBiU3ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJWu+opM6RjK-Z1dr35XvQ5cLKaV=cLG5uMu-rLkoO=X03c+FA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180405094346.104cf288@gandalf.local.home> <CAJWu+oqT0oPrEL4mPnWvF3Zt-psg2DWGj9Nrr+fda2JYFzRmqg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Apr 2018 16:36:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJWu+ooTV+VYib6aDXc9V2As6Nzz5DddBttaxYxyMJd0ZrcwDA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ring-buffer: Add set/clear_current_oom_origin() during allocations
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        kernel-patch-test@lists.linaro.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Steve,

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:59:18 -0700
>> Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Happy to try anything else, BTW when the si_mem_available check
>>> enabled, this doesn't happen and the buffer_size_kb write fails
>>> normally without hurting anything else.
>>
>> Can you remove the RETRY_MAYFAIL and see if you can try again? It may
>> be that we just remove that, and if si_mem_available() is wrong, it
>> will kill the process :-/ My original code would only add MAYFAIL if it
>> was a kernel thread (which is why I created the mflags variable).
>
> Tried this. Dropping RETRY_MAYFAIL and the si_mem_available check
> destabilized the system and brought it down (along with OOM killing
> the victim).
>
> System hung for several seconds and then both the memory hog and bash
> got killed.

I think its still Ok to keep the OOM patch as a safe guard even though
its hard to test, and the si_mem_available on its own seem sufficient.
What do you think?

thanks,


- Joel