MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220106102027.634842-1-jannh@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220106102027.634842-1-jannh@google.com>
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jan 2022 11:22:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAG48ez0-GO72FRO3deOKoB7Ubjk_7x4=j-eoD-38cV-HTEyG-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm, oom: OOM sysrq should always kill a process
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 11:21 AM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
> The OOM kill sysrq (alt+sysrq+F) should allow the user to kill the
> process with the highest OOM badness with a single execution.
>
> However, at the moment, the OOM kill can bail out if an OOM notifier
> (e.g. the i915 one) says that it reclaimed a tiny amount of memory
> from somewhere. That's probably not what the user wants.
>
> As documented in struct oom_control, order == -1 means the oom kill is
> required by sysrq. So check for that, and if it's true, don't bail out
> no matter what the OOM notifiers say.

Er, sorry, I just noticed after sending this that the commit message
doesn't make sense anymore... I'll send a new version in a sec.