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;
Date:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 18:55:27 +0100
From:   Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     zangchunxin@bytedance.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: fix infinite loop in drop_slab_node
Message-ID: <20200908175527.GA1336071@chrisdown.name>
References: <20200908142456.89626-1-zangchunxin@bytedance.com>
 <20200908150945.GA1301981@chrisdown.name>
 <07c6ebf1-e2b3-11a2-538f-4ac542a4373b@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <07c6ebf1-e2b3-11a2-538f-4ac542a4373b@suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.6 (2020-07-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Vlastimil Babka writes:
>On 9/8/20 5:09 PM, Chris Down wrote:
>> drop_caches by its very nature can be extremely performance intensive -- if
>> someone wants to abort after trying too long, they can just send a
>> TASK_KILLABLE signal, no? If exiting the loop and returning to usermode doesn't
>> reliably work when doing that, then _that's_ something to improve, but this
>> looks premature to me until that's demonstrated not to work.
>
>Hm there might be existings scripts (even though I dislike those) running
>drop_caches periodically, and they are currently not set up to be killed, so one
>day it might surprise someone. Dropping should be a one-time event, not a
>continual reclaim.

Sure, but these scripts can send it to their child themselves instead of using 
WCE, no? As far as I know, that's the already supported way to abort 
drop_caches-induced reclaim.