Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: stop reclaiming if GFP_ATOMIC will start failing
 soon
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2004241347310.70176@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20200425172706.26b5011293e8dc77b1dccaf3@linux-foundation.org>
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Message-ID: <c2c2f453-9cb3-72b9-a484-03652e8ce10e@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Sun, 26 Apr 2020 12:04:56 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200425172706.26b5011293e8dc77b1dccaf3@linux-foundation.org>
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 2020/04/26 9:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Well, what's really going on here?
> 
> Is networking potentially consuming an unbounded amount of memory?  If
> so, then killing a process will just cause networking to consume more
> memory then hit against the same thing.  So presumably the answer is
> "no, the watermarks are inappropriately set for this workload".
Maybe somebody is abusing __GFP_MEMALLOC allocations. David, please include whole
context (e.g. which function from which process) instead of only memory stat lines.