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:   Mon, 31 May 2021 13:33:32 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
        willy@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/page_alloc: bail out on fatal signal during
 reclaim/compaction retry attempt
Message-ID: <YLTJjJqemt5Uv9vP@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <YKZObDpduqwWi/Zm@casper.infradead.org>
 <20210520142901.3371299-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210520142901.3371299-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 20-05-21 15:29:01, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> A customer experienced a low-memory situation and decided to issue a
> SIGKILL (i.e. a fatal signal). Instead of promptly terminating as one
> would expect, the aforementioned task remained unresponsive.
> 
> Further investigation indicated that the task was "stuck" in the
> reclaim/compaction retry loop. Now, it does not make sense to retry
> compaction when a fatal signal is pending.

Is this really true in general? The memory reclaim is retried even when
fatal signals are pending. Why should be compaction different? I do
agree that retrying way too much is bad but is there any reason why this
special case doesn't follow the max retry logic?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs