Received: by 10.192.165.148 with SMTP id m20csp5090000imm; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:33:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+2aIRdVD8dYNmiMcyh8R8KWlkmz97tZHlbfGylDYV3bTRNEFR4WP1SkNR/P2KhgrMl9v40 X-Received: by 10.99.127.87 with SMTP id p23mr21352615pgn.240.1524602026505; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:33:46 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1524602026; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=UYN2oZJiaZzQ38fxdE9gefc52ISBDp0yc+gGuyC01GVw1q191N3H4rFjGl/QY6tcIy vIj+ohgprJlD/nEgndr6YGfAvdO/vIzDbX6XjXEhpsYW8IVaXPJkyL3++o624B2UlTi5 IHLKMA3mP+S/r7V5fqTPDnwEgGOBowinMn8DLgYVV/nDoIdfDaV25y+8j9BrSCjqSLZH OhjhLnEum1CSknVz3hX0mmhP+tnnZzQQ5HdWOG9hJ7h8meZneXVCeuPU2Dxb94F8gYy0 0Epw1lxnwYieIxiuuZFEL1BDbMbpaYXPkV56a1LoPzTuv2gVKguRwCij34WIIRTlU0cv f4SA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=KKHvUSF/woFuce/V+1pTDol+26rcK2UfpNuUeWfn9W0=; b=GN30A7yHB2wAAInBEb6iKNBbrAV/TKlYT2RGuM0ZRRaQmUQh+beN8/PRhnAMPFc9u6 BZaV3wIf881CSkRZ/FXy/15v0lnOaW+0KRSUEw+QiceOZroL7iGwm+lwDF04Z6zQBfey 9DGYlprLZgoUMNAf/dC/nrmH1h4UM36PvY6ArTm79ISQc0WeA3F5sOw/Y+lCSg0TKAht uizMj178MHKKKouunLXuPEQop7Wa41ht2tXWXS4sJW+2eMxMcNkgOod1vXsEaohgisRQ oJpg4aAJOkUiDc+Y57uCLniKZ8vHqLHh3H86ctcmDUi7EOI1LltBCgPJj365SHqFbQp5 jftA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a17-v6si15363722plm.151.2018.04.24.13.33.32; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:33:46 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751095AbeDXUbx (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:31:53 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56990 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750749AbeDXUbw (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:31:52 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0091AF18; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:31:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:31:48 -0600 From: Michal Hocko To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , Tetsuo Handa , Andrea Arcangeli , guro@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [patch v2] mm, oom: fix concurrent munlock and oom reaperunmap Message-ID: <20180424203148.GW17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180420082349.GW17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180420124044.GA17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201804221248.CHE35432.FtOMOLSHOFJFVQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20180424130432.GB17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180424201352.GV17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 24-04-18 13:22:45, David Rientjes wrote: [...] > > > My patch has passed intensive testing on both x86 and powerpc, so I'll ask > > > that it's pushed for 4.17-rc3. Many thanks to Tetsuo for the suggestion > > > on calling __oom_reap_task_mm() from exit_mmap(). > > > > Yeah, but your patch does have a problem with blockable mmu notifiers > > IIUC. > > What on earth are you talking about? exit_mmap() does > mmu_notifier_release(). There are no blockable mmu notifiers. MMF_OOM_SKIP - remember? The thing that guarantees a forward progress. So we cannot really depend on setting MMF_OOM_SKIP if a mmu_notifier_release blocks for an excessive/unbounded amount of time. Look I am not really interested in disussing this to death but it would be really _nice_ if you could calm down a bit, stop fighting for the solution you have proposed and ignore the feedback you are getting. There are two things to care about here. Stop the race that can blow up and do not regress MMF_OOM_SKIP guarantee. Can we please do that. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs