From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
Christoph von Recklinghausen <crecklin@redhat.com>,
Don Dutile <ddutile@redhat.com>,
"Herton R . Krzesinski" <herton@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
Andre Almeida <andrealmeid@collabora.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Joel Savitz <jsavitz@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] mm/oom_kill.c: futex: Close a race between do_exit and the oom_reaper
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 17:42:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220322004231.rwmnbjpq4ms6fnbi@offworld> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yjg9ncgep58gFLiN@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022, Michal Hocko wrote:
>The more I am thinking about this the more I am getting convinced that
>we should rather approach this differently and skip over vmas which can
>be holding the list. Have you considered this option?
While I tend to agree with this over a hacky trylock approach, I cannot
help but think that v3 was the right thing to do, at least conceptually.
Robust futex users here care enough about dealing with crashes while holding
a lock that they sacrifice the performance of regular futexes. So the OOM
killer should not cause this very thing. I went through previous threads
but other than the user base (which I don't think would be very large
just because of the performance implications), was there any other reason
to no just set MMF_OOM_SKIP upon a robust list?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-22 0:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-18 3:36 Nico Pache
2022-03-21 8:55 ` Michal Hocko
2022-03-21 22:45 ` Nico Pache
2022-03-22 0:42 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2022-03-22 1:53 ` Nico Pache
2022-03-22 2:57 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2022-03-22 3:09 ` Nico Pache
2022-03-22 8:26 ` Michal Hocko
2022-03-22 15:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-03-22 16:36 ` Michal Hocko
2022-03-22 22:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-03-23 9:17 ` Michal Hocko
2022-03-23 10:30 ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-03-23 11:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-03-30 9:18 ` Michal Hocko
2022-03-30 18:18 ` Nico Pache
2022-03-30 21:36 ` Nico Pache
2022-04-06 17:22 ` Nico Pache
2022-04-06 17:36 ` Nico Pache
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220322004231.rwmnbjpq4ms6fnbi@offworld \
--to=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andrealmeid@collabora.com \
--cc=aquini@redhat.com \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=crecklin@redhat.com \
--cc=ddutile@redhat.com \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=herton@redhat.com \
--cc=jsavitz@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=npache@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®