Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skipregular OOM killer path

From	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skipregular OOM killer path
Date	2016-04-09 06:50 +0200
Message-ID	<rlT0l-84o-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rkWtk-56i-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <rkWtk-56i-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rlgs2-37T-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <rlCLU-30J-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rlDeV-3dj-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 08-04-16 20:19:28, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > I looked at next-20160408 but I again came to think that we should remove
> > these shortcuts (something like a patch shown bottom).
>
> feel free to send the patch with the full description. But I would
> really encourage you to check the history to learn why those have been
> added and describe why those concerns are not valid/important anymore.

I believe that past discussions and decisions about current code are too
optimistic because they did not take 'The "too small to fail" memory-
allocation rule' problem into account.

If you ignore me with "check the history to learn why those have been added
and describe why those concerns are not valid/important anymore", I can do
nothing. What are valid/important concerns that have higher priority than
keeping 'The "too small to fail" memory-allocation rule' problem and continue
telling a lie to end users? Please enumerate such concerns.

> Your way of throwing a large patch based on an extreme load which is
> basically DoSing the machine is not the ideal one.

You are not paying attention to real world's limitations I'm facing.
I have to waste my resource trying to identify and fix on behalf of
customers before they determine the kernel version to use for their
systems, for your way of thinking is that "We don't need to worry about
it because I have never received such report" while the reality of
customers is that "I'm not skillful enough to catch the problematic
behavior and make a reproducer" or "I have a little skill but I'm not
permitted to modify my systems for reporting the problematic behavior".
If you listen to me, I don't need to do such thing. It is very very sad.

Thread

[PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skip regular OOM killer path Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-04-06 16:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skip regular OOM killer path Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-04-07 13:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skip regular OOM killer path Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-04-08 13:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skip  regular OOM killer path Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-04-08 14:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skipregular OOM killer path Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-04-09 06:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skipregular  OOM killer path Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-04-11 14:10 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skip regular OOM killer path Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-04-11 15:30 +0200
              Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skip  regular OOM killer path Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-04-11 15:50 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skip regular OOM killer path Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-04-13 13:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skip  regular OOM killer path Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-04-08 13:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 2/3] oom, oom_reaper: Try to reap tasks which skip  regular OOM killer path Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-04-08 15:20 +0200

csiph-web