Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-08 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 08-06-16 23:55:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 08-06-16 06:49:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > OK, so you are arming the timer for each mark_oom_victim regardless > > > > of the oom context. This means that you have replaced one potential > >

Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-08 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 08-06-16 06:49:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > OK, so you are arming the timer for each mark_oom_victim regardless > > > of the oom context. This means that you have replaced one potential > > > lockup by other potential livelocks. Tasks from diffe

Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-08 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 08-06-16 06:49:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > OK, so you are arming the timer for each mark_oom_victim regardless > > of the oom context. This means that you have replaced one potential > > lockup by other potential livelocks. Tasks from different oom domains > > might int

Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-07 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Michal Hocko wrote: > OK, so you are arming the timer for each mark_oom_victim regardless > of the oom context. This means that you have replaced one potential > lockup by other potential livelocks. Tasks from different oom domains > might interfere here... > > Also this code doesn't even seem eas

Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-07 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 07-06-16 23:30:20, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > To be honest, I don't think we need to apply this pile. > > > > So you do not think that the current pile is making the code easier to > > understand and more robust as well as the semantic more consistent? > > Right. It is

Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-07 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Michal Hocko wrote: > > To be honest, I don't think we need to apply this pile. > > So you do not think that the current pile is making the code easier to > understand and more robust as well as the semantic more consistent? Right. It is getting too complicated for me to understand. Below patch

Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-06 Thread Michal Hocko
On Sat 04-06-16 19:57:14, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 03-06-16 14:20:30, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > Do no take me wrong but I would rather make sure that the current pile > > > is reviewed and no unintentional side effects are introduced than open > > > yet another

Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-06 Thread Michal Hocko
On Sat 04-06-16 00:17:29, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 03-06-16 21:00:31, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Patch 8 is new in this version and it addresses an issue pointed out > > > > by 0-day OOM report where an oom victim was reaped several times. > >

Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-04 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 03-06-16 14:20:30, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Do no take me wrong but I would rather make sure that the current pile > > is reviewed and no unintentional side effects are introduced than open > > yet another can of worms. > > And just to add. You have found many b

Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-03 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 03-06-16 21:00:31, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Patch 8 is new in this version and it addresses an issue pointed out > > > by 0-day OOM report where an oom victim was reaped several times. > > > > I believe we need below once-you-nacked patch as we

Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-03 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 03-06-16 14:20:30, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > Do no take me wrong but I would rather make sure that the current pile > is reviewed and no unintentional side effects are introduced than open > yet another can of worms. And just to add. You have found many buugs in the previous versions of t

Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-03 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 03-06-16 21:00:31, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > Patch 8 is new in this version and it addresses an issue pointed out > > by 0-day OOM report where an oom victim was reaped several times. > > I believe we need below once-you-nacked patch as well. > > It would be possible to

Re: [PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-03 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Michal Hocko wrote: > Patch 8 is new in this version and it addresses an issue pointed out > by 0-day OOM report where an oom victim was reaped several times. I believe we need below once-you-nacked patch as well. It would be possible to clear victim->signal->oom_flag_origin when that victim gets

[PATCH 0/10 -v3] Handle oom bypass more gracefully

2016-06-03 Thread Michal Hocko
Hi, this is the third version of the patchse. Previous version was posted http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1464613556-16708-1-git-send-email-mho...@kernel.org I have folded in all the fixes pointed by Oleg (thanks). I hope I haven't missed anything. The following 10 patches should put some order to very r