Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: do not rely on TIF_MEMDIE for memory reserves access
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Thu Aug 03 2017 - 04:21:15 EST
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