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;
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: prevent soft lockup on memcg oom for UP systems
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2003101438510.161160@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Message-ID: <0e5ca6ee-d460-db8e-aba2-79aa7a66fad1@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Wed, 11 Mar 2020 07:05:40 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2003101438510.161160@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020/03/11 6:39, David Rientjes wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2637,6 +2637,8 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
>  		unsigned long reclaimed;
>  		unsigned long scanned;
>  
> +		cond_resched();
> +

Is this safe for CONFIG_PREEMPTION case? If current thread has realtime priority,
can we guarantee that the OOM victim (well, the OOM reaper kernel thread rather
than the OOM victim ?) gets scheduled?

>  		switch (mem_cgroup_protected(target_memcg, memcg)) {
>  		case MEMCG_PROT_MIN:
>  			/*
>