From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Gushchin Subject: Re: [v3 5/6] mm, oom: don't mark all oom victims tasks with TIF_MEMDIE Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 14:45:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20170629184513.GA27714@castle> References: <1498079956-24467-1-git-send-email-guro@fb.com> <1498079956-24467-6-git-send-email-guro@fb.com> <20170629085357.GF31603@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fb.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=facebook; bh=XcTxE1uPRHk8hp2pv7bhIF0zFoI7O37p0HS/D2HE4AY=; b=FAaubxU1s1jp8TzINH8oBNxrR0ITYV1k5s53JIFN7L+LfO9l7DQ/ovbjmBrJ11V+3hx+ 7hlxsgIO6K4FfOYS/1K7YzLk/of+N3FsXP3vDBXCeedzbrf2D6HVPFw4f6II9fuoi4RF TyeaZ2yrVG3llfP1ky+iHnYLMhC+a2NCu1A= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fb.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-fb-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=XcTxE1uPRHk8hp2pv7bhIF0zFoI7O37p0HS/D2HE4AY=; b=NQ04TibBnR6BL1XPIq+Pj8GMzBwgnDlMGjVBejrO0V3KOBPdzFtM8KzrvsmHR7yYgvAPowrPhRid8pDz+SdkY/nXrNjEPIEBnsjVL4TuzhAlQ/XwK05jwWC0p3IHMwOK7lcxG53Ihny/JjtRaayLo2y56LY6YpTJQdSKuu8nolE= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170629085357.GF31603@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Tetsuo Handa , kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:53:57AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 21-06-17 22:19:15, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > We want to limit the number of tasks which are having an access > > to the memory reserves. To ensure the progress it's enough > > to have one such process at the time. > > > > If we need to kill the whole cgroup, let's give an access to the > > memory reserves only to the first process in the list, which is > > (usually) the biggest process. > > This will give us good chances that all other processes will be able > > to quit without an access to the memory reserves. > > I don't like this to be honest. Is there any reason to go the reduced > memory reserves access to oom victims I was suggesting earlier [1]? > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1472723464-22866-2-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org I've nothing against your approach. What's the state of this patchset? Do you plan to bring it upstream? Roman -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org