[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061012150350.00f19d2a.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:03:50 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] oom: less memdie
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:10:01 +0200 (CEST)
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> Don't cause all threads in all other thread groups to gain TIF_MEMDIE
> otherwise we'll get a thundering herd eating out memory reserve. This
> may not be the optimal scheme, but it fits our policy of allowing just
> one TIF_MEMDIE in the system at once.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
>
> Index: linux-2.6/mm/oom_kill.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -322,11 +322,12 @@ static int oom_kill_task(struct task_str
>
> /*
> * kill all processes that share the ->mm (i.e. all threads),
> - * but are in a different thread group.
> + * but are in a different thread group. Don't let them have access
> + * to memory reserves though, otherwise we might deplete all memory.
> */
> do_each_thread(g, q) {
> if (q->mm == mm && q->tgid != p->tgid)
> - __oom_kill_task(q, 1);
> + force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
> } while_each_thread(g, q);
>
Curious. How much testing did you do of this stuff? I assume there were
some observed problems. What were they, and what was the observed effect
of these changes?
Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists