Received: by 2002:a25:e7d8:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id e207csp1016530ybh; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:33:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vspLhVnZ3DLnNAsIZuLISyTXmqw52X9bsMMhF1JwB1qTY4ZQaMhhOsFsEHDAVLLAuOhi1ka X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:195:: with SMTP id w21mr4650680oic.77.1584052404286; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:33:24 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1584052404; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=M9F4voME6gQxqt4oSd3PZ69t1DsANC8Qi+UtedxVU0U5X6aNwLhJUCdOwVHPRldPXp H8nJ2nBt+2+nx2bkmgT3ue7dQ2XBDCIGCaWCrM2AwGH33TSFXOy4iUQdIrZk7InkcgtI CZ4m52OhWEB7LxRK0NDdYCoezqrlzAqqW7pjHL2F2YtcmoWfiuiYQKyVLZ1plzHOSG52 5uYNFyVJjgJO670yvJHg6U862MVT4m0IEg4ZIo7PPK76yEX2qsZVPf6je7QZF/JLkM/B eN8xti9CUzdReIBq0hWepxh3sik76ekNlA0FQvZONliIb+0JikHXMBdgdf2WSJwNt0uI eSxQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dkim-signature; bh=wEOTeOlDhhq6N0IaSRnB/DYtsUq5W7F+trUwMPm1Ipg=; b=K412+dK9d1UDR+6irwKdhmbyFXhHS4U9r9sB7EI3bVl8+RA/y5Dmc8o2k3G2WGUpwm zGim4QwmDaoTSl+91fO5inXSEPcr0XPOrOzzucFsyxnrPeP7P7hlPyodY7RUk9EmG8D3 gLfNQMvT3461TfJsvPUMJSN0tZW0J2IVEMEWYF3hdXg+cP4y3OHg+J3y5v7vX2/ZjJy2 K6Bh2V48ZcJtcdNnPFzsoeEMAhk+5OxwOiZaoaa9/yVlPwY7qgR6ibn3Y+8SHzzl5fSS h2z+J6aElufQwcQfD5pxR2m5R+oMDOmh6Z62ygXsABVlfXVY4+N2YyxiOfacXGyPzDYd +4pg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=default header.b=2u1oozTC; 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 Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c195si3858156oig.142.2020.03.12.15.33.11; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:33:24 -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; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=default header.b=2u1oozTC; 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 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726710AbgCLWcj (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:32:39 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:52768 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726605AbgCLWcj (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:32:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-231-172-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.172.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CBE920637; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 22:32:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1584052358; bh=Lza2wvGcb07HstOGtM3uhmYGNmaJ9AzJsigH30FF04c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=2u1oozTCjgkspj5iC+6D6dBZcbBYV0TdViO75UI0pVKxRdVf6Yf6B4BTFuO9ld+3c FWyX5qGQKQEAa+V2jnHQ7SjZ+sx9hTOKyZ3zlops4671t8fqYEwGRPRLTbWhnm9JHW ARFpFWy5RudMAXMCwm65x/vy1QbG2Yolwf7LkPvo= Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:32:38 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: David Rientjes Cc: Tetsuo Handa , Vlastimil Babka , Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: prevent soft lockup on memcg oom for UP systems Message-Id: <20200312153238.c8d25ea6994b54a2c4d5ae1f@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <993e7783-60e9-ba03-b512-c829b9e833fd@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> <202003120012.02C0CEUB043533@www262.sakura.ne.jp> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:07:15 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2020, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > On Thu, 12 Mar 2020, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > > If you have an alternate patch to try, we can test it. But since this > > > > > cond_resched() is needed anyway, I'm not sure it will change the result. > > > > > > > > schedule_timeout_killable(1) is an alternate patch to try; I don't think > > > > that this cond_resched() is needed anyway. > > > > > > > > > > You are suggesting schedule_timeout_killable(1) in shrink_node_memcgs()? > > > > > > > Andrew Morton also mentioned whether cond_resched() in shrink_node_memcgs() > > is enough. But like you mentioned, > > > > It passes our testing because this is where the allocator is looping while > the victim is trying to exit if only it could be scheduled. What happens if the allocator has SCHED_FIFO?