Re: [oom]: [0/4] fix OOM deadlock running OAST

[Andrew Morton]

William Lee Irwin III <wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Also, you mentioned at one point extending committed memory accounting
>  to account for unreclaimable pages (the term you suggested). Would you
>  also like that to be looked into? It might take longer than overnight
>  to brew up, mostly due to testing turnaround.

Well let's see how the patch ends up looking.

I have bad feelings about the overcommit logic - several times we have
accidentally noticed (and fixed) gross inaccuracies in it, and I am sure
others remain.

I am not aware of anyone getting down and explicitly testing it in lots of
different scenarios (including mlock), and perhaps it gets inaccurate when
zone fallbacks are involved.

If you're prepared to undertake that level of thinking and coverage testing
and fix up the fallout, that would certainly be good.  If you think it's
worth the effort, and, again, depending upon the performance and ickiness
impact of the patches.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/