Re: [v10 3/6] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

Michal Hocko
2017-10-05T11:12:34Z

On Thu 05-10-17 11:27:07, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:24:26PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
[...]
> > Sorry about the confusion. There are two things. First, should we do a
> > css_get on the newly selected memcg within the for loop when we still
> > have a reference to it?
>
> We're holding rcu_read_lock, it should be enough. We're bumping css counter
> just before releasing rcu lock.

yes

> >
> > Second, for the OFFLINE memcg, you are right oom_evaluate_memcg() will
> > return 0 for offlined memcgs. Maybe no need to call
> > oom_evaluate_memcg() for offlined memcgs.
>
> Sounds like a good optimization, which can be done on top of the current
> patchset.

You could achive this by checking whether a memcg has tasks rather than
explicitly checking for children memcgs as I've suggested already.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs