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;
Date:   Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:38:36 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge
 path
Message-ID: <20180620193836.GB4734@cmpxchg.org>
References: <20180620103736.13880-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <20180620151812.GA2441@cmpxchg.org>
 <20180620153148.GO13685@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180620153148.GO13685@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 05:31:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 	 * Please note that mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize might fail to find a
> 	 * victim and then we have rely on mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize otherwise
> 	 * we would fall back to the global oom killer in pagefault_out_of_memory

I can't quite figure out what this paragraph is trying to
say. "oom_synchronize might fail [...] and we have to rely on
oom_synchronize". Hm?