From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-f179.google.com (mail-qc0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B856B0069 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:44:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id o8so719246qcw.38 for ; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 07:44:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com (mail-qg0-x235.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q2si6852732qaq.121.2014.11.05.07.44.40 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Nov 2014 07:44:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id z107so12171242qgd.26 for ; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 07:44:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:44:36 -0500 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] OOM, PM: OOM killed task shouldn't escape PM suspend Message-ID: <20141105154436.GB14386@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1413876435-11720-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <2156351.pWp6MNRoWm@vostro.rjw.lan> <20141021141159.GE9415@dhcp22.suse.cz> <4766859.KSKPTm3b0x@vostro.rjw.lan> <20141021142939.GG9415@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20141104192705.GA22163@htj.dyndns.org> <20141105124620.GB4527@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20141105130247.GA14386@htj.dyndns.org> <20141105133100.GC4527@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20141105134219.GD4527@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141105134219.GD4527@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , Cong Wang , David Rientjes , Oleg Nesterov , LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux PM list On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:42:19PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 05-11-14 14:31:00, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 05-11-14 08:02:47, Tejun Heo wrote: > [...] > > > Also, why isn't this part of > > > oom_killer_disable/enable()? The way they're implemented is really > > > silly now. It just sets a flag and returns whether there's a > > > currently running instance or not. How were these even useful? > > > Why can't you just make disable/enable to what they were supposed to > > > do from the beginning? > > > > Because then we would block all the potential allocators coming from > > workqueues or kernel threads which are not frozen yet rather than fail > > the allocation. > > After thinking about this more it would be doable by using trylock in > the allocation oom path. I will respin the patch. The API will be > cleaner this way. In disable, block new invocations of OOM killer and then drain the in-progress ones. This is a common pattern, isn't it? -- tejun -- 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