From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: fix oom_unkillable_task for memcg OOMs
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 18:17:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190617161702.GE1492@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190617155954.155791-1-shakeelb@google.com>
On Mon 17-06-19 08:59:54, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> Currently oom_unkillable_task() checks mems_allowed even for memcg OOMs
> which does not make sense as memcg OOMs can not be triggered due to
> numa constraints. Fixing that.
>
> Also if memcg is given, oom_unkillable_task() will check the task's
> memcg membership as well to detect oom killability. However all the
> memcg related code paths leading to oom_unkillable_task(), other than
> dump_tasks(), come through mem_cgroup_scan_tasks() which traverses
> tasks through memcgs. Once dump_tasks() is converted to use
> mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(), there is no need to do memcg membership check
> in oom_unkillable_task().
I think this patch just does too much in one go. Could you split out
the dump_tasks part and the oom_unkillable_task parts into two patches
please? It should be slightly easier to review.
[...]
> +static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p, struct oom_control *oc)
> {
> if (is_global_init(p))
> return true;
> if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
> return true;
> + if (!oc)
> + return false;
Bah, this is just too ugly. AFAICS this is only because oom_score still
uses oom_unkillable_task which is kinda dubious, no? While you are
touching this code, can we remove this part as well? I would be really
surprised if any code really depends on ineligible tasks reporting 0
oom_score.
Other than that it looks reasonable to me from a quick glance but I have
to look more carefuly.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-17 16:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-17 15:59 [PATCH] mm, oom: fix oom_unkillable_task for memcg OOMs Shakeel Butt
2019-06-17 16:17 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2019-06-17 16:48 ` Shakeel Butt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190617161702.GE1492@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox