Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Bring OOM notifier callbacks to outside of OOM killer.

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 07:39:42AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 03-07-18 09:01:01, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 09:24:13AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 02-07-18 14:37:14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > commit d2b8d16b97ac2859919713b2d98b8a3ad22943a2
> > > > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date:   Mon Jul 2 14:30:37 2018 -0700
> > > > 
> > > >     rcu: Remove OOM code
> > > >     
> > > >     There is reason to believe that RCU's OOM code isn't really helping
> > > >     that much, given that the best it can hope to do is accelerate invoking
> > > >     callbacks by a few seconds, and even then only if some CPUs have no
> > > >     non-lazy callbacks, a condition that has been observed to be rare.
> > > >     This commit therefore removes RCU's OOM code.  If this causes problems,
> > > >     it can easily be reinserted.
> > > >     
> > > >     Reported-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >     Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > I would also note that waiting in the notifier might be a problem on its
> > > own because we are holding the oom_lock and the system cannot trigger
> > > the OOM killer while we are holding it and waiting for oom_callback_wq
> > > event. I am not familiar with the code to tell whether this can deadlock
> > > but from a quick glance I _suspect_ that we might depend on __rcu_reclaim
> > > and basically an arbitrary callback so no good.
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > 
> > Like this?
> 
> Thanks!

Very good, queued for the merge window after next, that is, whatever
number after v4.19.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul