Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a7:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m36-v6csp3959836imm; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 13:51:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfszhLhroQjk7p3bgqEuXMvG2zu124vpZ3PJfo/7BLYIVXjhKFsWW38tAIgDFMCAUdViO/u X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:5582:: with SMTP id g2-v6mr15391602pli.328.1533588713224; Mon, 06 Aug 2018 13:51:53 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1533588713; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=dqu6UwNtikXEgaXZGS9eKmEOxKEaa85Xvu2BtjOwMJ8vkxfqmO5xUIi7QaYKms1XNL S7UucMNCUV9AE8YzHdDCknvpW7ml7Fm8spC25152vix2QQxmknCK3OsCI5sJwFgyd4fa RmGnfQySJoOWwZk2LCIAp29saZ7TV+rTvUd1pUfm61/3eV1q4GPfWu9ynoVQTJGjTwUA Zhe1TkJlEgsGye91bAIXbngEZrDDMOQMh22JXqRAMl/XTiUVYXg9ASpVY25SsSeXoj0X D50pycZAWwFvaNkN6QQwm0SLmRIEea+DuxHsKJTDAFRDDT49C868jXUufg7qCdK50bIM AGXg== 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=oNIYNu+dDQdvsd/PCvOMoiwmfV9NjoWMCgA1n42c/kc=; b=TN5cCY1B08uvfqmNlehiCpyXUlRQI5doCLU5RFaRQrLGKpCnupLtUfPe9D0sCNztTI VwLMVknXvk5n8B63FjSNYpH335tDcqXWr7RU+p1LSAwiashrS9CLv/XIvCenjGgOWwsV YCPnST7IJj1eOAI75EW8trM7zy+ote69EfQBkrNMLqVyq7ejwQQ0B7fv0s/qJ1tmkyw+ ajXsHwSHNNyIP+NhWC+1DXxbVGP1shMchT/td68WfBedcf5vifNEsCkdMpkOBI2gUyak BjVBkmpP+ULNrM7aOYcHfZXSZJwZii+pbFi0FWHMx59PIqZr1BnTUom02yRWWSgpshjT qnfw== 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; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id d1-v6si14129881pfk.166.2018.08.06.13.51.38; Mon, 06 Aug 2018 13:51:53 -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; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388099AbeHFWpZ (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 6 Aug 2018 18:45:25 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:40764 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387916AbeHFWpY (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2018 18:45:24 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6379FACA8; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 20:34:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 22:34:37 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: syzbot , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, dvyukov@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com Subject: Re: WARNING in try_charge Message-ID: <20180806203437.GK10003@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <0000000000006350880572c61e62@google.com> <20180806174410.GB10003@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180806175627.GC10003@dhcp22.suse.cz> <078bde8d-b1b5-f5ad-ed23-0cd94b579f9e@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <078bde8d-b1b5-f5ad-ed23-0cd94b579f9e@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 07-08-18 05:26:23, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/08/07 2:56, Michal Hocko wrote: > > So the oom victim indeed passed the above force path after the oom > > invocation. But later on hit the page fault path and that behaved > > differently and for some reason the force path hasn't triggered. I am > > wondering how could we hit the page fault path in the first place. The > > task is already killed! So what the hell is going on here. > > > > I must be missing something obvious here. > > > YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY MISSING MY MAIL! > > I already said this is "mm, oom: task_will_free_mem(current) should ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP for once." > problem which you are refusing at https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg133774.html . > And you again ignored my mail. Very sad... Your suggestion simply didn't make much sense. There is nothing like first check is different from the rest. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs