Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm, oom_adj: don't loop through tasks in __set_oom_adj when not necessary

Christian Brauner
2020-08-20T16:30:09Z

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 06:26:45PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 20-08-20 08:56:53, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> [...]
> > Catching up on the discussion which was going on while I was asleep...
> > So it sounds like there is a consensus that oom_adj should be moved to
> > mm_struct rather than trying to synchronize it among tasks sharing mm.
> > That sounds reasonable to me too. Michal answered all the earlier
> > questions about this patch, so I won't be reiterating them, thanks
> > Michal. If any questions are still lingering about the original patch
> > I'll be glad to answer them.
>
> I think it still makes some sense to go with a simpler (aka less tricky)
> solution which would be your original patch with an incremental fix for
> vfork and the proper ordering (http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200820124109.GI5033@dhcp22.suse.cz)
> and then make a more complex shift to mm struct on top of that. The
> former will be less tricky to backport to stable IMHO.

/me nods

Christian