From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751869AbdHCIVL (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2017 04:21:11 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60751 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751815AbdHCIVG (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2017 04:21:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 10:21:04 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, guro@fb.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: do not rely on TIF_MEMDIE for memory reserves access Message-ID: <20170803082104.GE12521@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170727090357.3205-2-mhocko@kernel.org> <201708020030.ACB04683.JLHMFVOSFFOtOQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20170801165242.GA15518@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201708031039.GDG05288.OQJOHtLVFMSFFO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20170803070606.GA12521@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201708031703.HGC35950.LSJFOHQFtFMOVO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201708031703.HGC35950.LSJFOHQFtFMOVO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 03-08-17 17:03:20, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > Look, I really appreciate your sentiment for for nommu platform but with > > an absolute lack of _any_ oom reports on that platform that I am aware > > of nor any reports about lockups during oom I am less than thrilled to > > add a code to fix a problem which even might not exist. Nommu is usually > > very special with a very specific workload running (e.g. no overcommit) > > so I strongly suspect that any OOM theories are highly academic. > > If you believe that there is really no oom report, get rid of the OOM > killer completely. I am not an user or even an owner of such a platform. As I've said all I care about is to not regress for those guys and I believe that the patch doesn't change nommu behavior in any risky way. If yes, point them out and I will try to address them. > > All I do care about is to not regress nommu as much as possible. So can > > we get back to the proposed patch and updates I have done to address > > your review feedback please? > > No unless we get rid of the OOM killer if CONFIG_MMU=n. Are you saying that you are going to nack the patch based on this reasoning? This is just ridiculous. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs