Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-07 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Michal Hocko wrote: > On Sat 07-10-17 13:05:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 11:21:26AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > On 2017/10/05 19:36, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > > I don't want this patch backported. If you want to backport, > > > > > "s/fat

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-07 Thread Michal Hocko
On Sat 07-10-17 13:05:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 11:21:26AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > On 2017/10/05 19:36, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > I don't want this patch backported. If you want to backport, > > > > "s/fatal_signal_pending/tsk_is_oom_vic

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-06 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 11:21:26AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > On 2017/10/05 19:36, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > I don't want this patch backported. If you want to backport, > > > "s/fatal_signal_pending/tsk_is_oom_victim/" is the safer way. > > > > If you backport this pa

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-06 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 11:21:26AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2017/10/05 19:36, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > I don't want this patch backported. If you want to backport, > > "s/fatal_signal_pending/tsk_is_oom_victim/" is the safer way. > > If you backport this patch, you will see "complete depleti

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-06 Thread Tetsuo Handa
On 2017/10/05 19:36, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > I don't want this patch backported. If you want to backport, > "s/fatal_signal_pending/tsk_is_oom_victim/" is the safer way. If you backport this patch, you will see "complete depletion of memory reserves" and "extra OOM kills due to depletion of memory r

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-05 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 05-10-17 19:36:17, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2017/10/05 16:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 04-10-17 19:18:21, Johannes Weiner wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:32:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > [...] > >>> You don't think they should be backported into -stables? > >> > >> Good p

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-05 Thread Tetsuo Handa
On 2017/10/05 16:57, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 04-10-17 19:18:21, Johannes Weiner wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:32:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > [...] >>> You don't think they should be backported into -stables? >> >> Good point. For this one, it makes sense to CC stable, for 4.11 an

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-05 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 04-10-17 19:18:21, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:32:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: [...] > > You don't think they should be backported into -stables? > > Good point. For this one, it makes sense to CC stable, for 4.11 and > up. The second patch is more of a fortifica

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-05 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 04-10-17 14:59:06, Johannes Weiner wrote: > This reverts commit 5d17a73a2ebeb8d1c6924b91e53ab2650fe86ffb and > commit 171012f561274784160f666f8398af8b42216e1f. > > 5d17a73a2ebe ("vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed") > made all vmalloc allocations from a signal-killed task fai

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-04 Thread Vlastimil Babka
On 10/04/2017 08:59 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > This reverts commit 5d17a73a2ebeb8d1c6924b91e53ab2650fe86ffb and > commit 171012f561274784160f666f8398af8b42216e1f. > > 5d17a73a2ebe ("vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed") > made all vmalloc allocations from a signal-killed task fail.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-04 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 06:42:38AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:49:43AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > On 2017/10/05 3:59, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > But the justification to make that vmalloc() call fail like this isn't > > > > convincing

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-04 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:32:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 14:59:06 -0400 Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > This reverts commit 5d17a73a2ebeb8d1c6924b91e53ab2650fe86ffb and > > commit 171012f561274784160f666f8398af8b42216e1f. > > > > 5d17a73a2ebe ("vmalloc: back off when the

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-04 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 14:59:06 -0400 Johannes Weiner wrote: > This reverts commit 5d17a73a2ebeb8d1c6924b91e53ab2650fe86ffb and > commit 171012f561274784160f666f8398af8b42216e1f. > > 5d17a73a2ebe ("vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed") > made all vmalloc allocations from a signal-kille

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-04 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:49:43AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > On 2017/10/05 3:59, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > But the justification to make that vmalloc() call fail like this isn't > > > convincing, either. The patch mentions an OOM victim exhausting the > > > memory r

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-04 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:49:43AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2017/10/05 3:59, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > But the justification to make that vmalloc() call fail like this isn't > > convincing, either. The patch mentions an OOM victim exhausting the > > memory reserves and thus deadlocking the

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-04 Thread Tetsuo Handa
On 2017/10/05 3:59, Johannes Weiner wrote: > But the justification to make that vmalloc() call fail like this isn't > convincing, either. The patch mentions an OOM victim exhausting the > memory reserves and thus deadlocking the machine. But the OOM killer > is only one, improbable source of fatal

[PATCH 1/2] Revert "vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed"

2017-10-04 Thread Johannes Weiner
This reverts commit 5d17a73a2ebeb8d1c6924b91e53ab2650fe86ffb and commit 171012f561274784160f666f8398af8b42216e1f. 5d17a73a2ebe ("vmalloc: back off when the current task is killed") made all vmalloc allocations from a signal-killed task fail. We have seen crashes in the tty driver from this, where