lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fs, mm: account filp and names caches to kmemcg
On Wed 25-10-17 15:49:21, Greg Thelen wrote:
> Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 09:00:57PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> >> So just to make it clear you would be OK with the retry on successful
> >> OOM killer invocation and force charge on oom failure, right?
> >
> > Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me.
>
> Assuming we're talking about retrying within try_charge(), then there's
> a detail to iron out...
>
> If there is a pending oom victim blocked on a lock held by try_charge() caller
> (the "#2 Locks" case), then I think repeated calls to out_of_memory() will
> return true until the victim either gets MMF_OOM_SKIP or disappears.

true. And oom_reaper guarantees that MMF_OOM_SKIP gets set in the finit
amount of time.

> So a force
> charge fallback might be a needed even with oom killer successful invocations.
> Or we'll need to teach out_of_memory() to return three values (e.g. NO_VICTIM,
> NEW_VICTIM, PENDING_VICTIM) and try_charge() can loop on NEW_VICTIM.

No we, really want to wait for the oom victim to do its job. The only
thing we should be worried about is when out_of_memory doesn't invoke
the reaper. There is only one case like that AFAIK - GFP_NOFS request. I
have to think about this case some more. We currently fail in that case
the request.

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-26 09:50    [W:0.108 / U:8.068 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site