From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751339AbdAOPTg (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:19:36 -0500
Received: from gum.cmpxchg.org ([85.214.110.215]:38014 "EHLO gum.cmpxchg.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750831AbdAOPTe (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:19:34 -0500
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:19:14 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2] mm, memcg: do not retry precharge charges
Message-ID: <20170115151914.GA28947@cmpxchg.org>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1701112031250.94269@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1701121446130.12738@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20170113084014.GB25212@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1701130208510.69402@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20170114162238.GD26139@cmpxchg.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1701142137020.8668@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1701142137020.8668@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 09:42:48PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 
> > The OOM killer livelock was the motivation for this patch. With that
> > ruled out, what's the point of this patch? Try a bit less hard to move
> > charges during task migration?
> > 
> 
> Most important part is to fail ->can_attach() instead of oom killing 
> processes when attaching a process to a memcg hierarchy.

Ah, that makes sense.

Could you please update the changelog to reflect this? Thanks!