Thread (24 messages) 24 messages, 5 authors, 2013-06-14

Re: [patch 2/2] memcg: do not sleep on OOM waitqueue with full charge context

From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Date: 2013-06-12 20:49:54
Also in: cgroups, linux-mm, lkml

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Michal Hocko wrote:
The patch is a big improvement with a minimum code overhead. Blocking
any task which sits on top of an unpredictable amount of locks is just
broken. So regardless how many users are affected we should merge it and
backport to stable trees. The problem is there since ever. We seem to
be surprisingly lucky to not hit this more often.
Right now it appears that that number of users is 0 and we're talking 
about a problem that was reported in 3.2 that was released a year and a 
half ago.  The rules of inclusion in stable also prohibit such a change 
from being backported, specifically "It must fix a real bug that bothers 
people (not a, "This could be a problem..." type thing)".

We have deployed memcg on a very large number of machines and I can run a 
query over all software watchdog timeouts that have occurred by 
deadlocking on i_mutex during memcg oom.  It returns 0 results.
I am not quite sure I understand your reservation about the patch to be
honest. Andrew still hasn't merged this one although 1/2 is in.
Perhaps he is as unconvinced?  The patch adds 100 lines of code, including 
fields to task_struct for memcg, for a problem that nobody can reproduce.  
My question still stands: can anybody, even with an instrumented kernel to 
make it more probable, reproduce the issue this is addressing?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help