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:   Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
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
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: prevent soft lockup on memcg oom for UP
 systems
In-Reply-To: <0e5ca6ee-d460-db8e-aba2-79aa7a66fad1@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2003101555050.177273@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2003101438510.161160@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <0e5ca6ee-d460-db8e-aba2-79aa7a66fad1@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020, Tetsuo Handa 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?
> 

I think it's the best we can do that immediately solves the issue unless 
you have another idea in mind?

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