On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:42:19PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 05-11-14 14:31:00, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 05-11-14 08:02:47, Tejun Heo wrote: > [...] > > > Also, why isn't this part of > > > oom_killer_disable/enable()? The way they're implemented is really > > > silly now. It just sets a flag and returns whether there's a > > > currently running instance or not. How were these even useful? > > > Why can't you just make disable/enable to what they were supposed to > > > do from the beginning? > > > > Because then we would block all the potential allocators coming from > > workqueues or kernel threads which are not frozen yet rather than fail > > the allocation. > > After thinking about this more it would be doable by using trylock in > the allocation oom path. I will respin the patch. The API will be > cleaner this way.
In disable, block new invocations of OOM killer and then drain the in-progress ones. This is a common pattern, isn't it? -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
