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:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:36:46 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.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: <20180621073646.GB10465@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20180620103736.13880-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <20180620151812.GA2441@cmpxchg.org>
 <20180620153148.GO13685@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20180620193836.GB4734@cmpxchg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180620193836.GB4734@cmpxchg.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 20-06-18 15:38:36, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 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?

heh, vim autocompletion + a stale comment from the previous
implementation which ENOMEM on the fail path. I went with 

	 * Please note that mem_cgroup_out_of_memory might fail to find a
	 * victim and then we have to bail out from the charge path.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs