Re: [PATCH memcg 2/3] memcg: remove charge forcinig for dying tasks

[Vasily Averin]

On 20.10.2021 15:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 20-10-21 15:13:46, Vasily Averin wrote:
>> ToDo: should we keep task_is_dying() in mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() ?
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  mm/memcontrol.c | 20 +++++++-------------
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 6da5020a8656..74a7379dbac1 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ enum res_type {
>>  	     iter != NULL;				\
>>  	     iter = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, iter, NULL))
>>  
>> -static inline bool should_force_charge(void)
>> +static inline bool task_is_dying(void)
>>  {
>>  	return tsk_is_oom_victim(current) || fatal_signal_pending(current) ||
>>  		(current->flags & PF_EXITING);
>> @@ -1575,7 +1575,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>>  	 * A few threads which were not waiting at mutex_lock_killable() can
>>  	 * fail to bail out. Therefore, check again after holding oom_lock.
>>  	 */
>> -	ret = should_force_charge() || out_of_memory(&oc);
>> +	ret = task_is_dying() || out_of_memory(&oc);
> 
> Why are you keeping the task_is_dying check here? IIRC I have already
> pointed out that out_of_memory already has some means to do a bypass
> when needed.

It was a misunderstanding.
I've been waiting for your final decision.

I have no good arguments "pro" or strong objection "contra". 
However, I prefer to keep task_is_dying() so as not to touch other tasks unnecessarily.

I can't justify why its removal is necessary,
but on the other hand, it shouldn't break anything.

I can drop it if you think it's necessary.

Thank you,
	Vasily Averin