On Wed 23-03-16 20:11:35, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > David Rientjes wrote: [...] > > Tetsuo, have you been able to run your previous test cases on top of this > > version and do you have any concerns about it or possible extensions that > > could be made? > > > > I think [PATCH 3/9] [PATCH 4/9] [PATCH 8/9] will be mostly reverted. > My concerns and possible extensions are explained in > > Re: [PATCH 6/5] oom, oom_reaper: disable oom_reaper for > oom_kill_allocating_task > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201603152015.jae86937.vfoltqfofjo...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
I believe issues you have raised there are a matter for further discussion as they are potential improvements of the existing functionality rather than fixing a regression of the current code. > . Regarding "[PATCH 4/9] mm, oom_reaper: report success/failure", > debug_show_all_locks() may not be safe > > commit 856848737bd944c1 "lockdep: fix debug_show_all_locks()" > commit 82a1fcb90287052a "softlockup: automatically detect hung > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks" Let me ask again. What exactly is unsafe about calling debug_show_all_locks here? It is true that 856848737bd944c1 has changed debug_show_all_locks to ignore running tasks which limits this functionality to some degree but I still think this might be useful. Proposed alternatives were way too verbose and complex on its own. This is something to be further discussed as well, though. > and showing traces might be more useful. > (A discussion for making printk() completely async is in progress.) > > But we don't have time to update this series before merge window for 4.6 > closes. > We want to send current patchset as is for now, don't we? So, please go ahead. I am happy that we are on the same patch here. > My other concerns about OOM handling: Let's stick to oom reaper here, please. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
