On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 9:29 AM Christian Brauner <christian.brau...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > 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.gi5...@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
Ah, ok. Then I'll incorporate these changes, re-test and re-post as v2. Thanks! > > Christian
