linux-kernel - misleading comment in __oom_kill

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:03:58 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: misleading comment in __oom_kill_task()?

Towards the end of __oom_kill_task() we see the following comment/code:

	/*
	 * We give our sacrificial lamb high priority and access to
	 * all the memory it needs. That way it should be able to
	 * exit() and clear out its resources quickly...
	 */
	p->time_slice = HZ;
	set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);

	force_sig(SIGKILL, p);

I see it getting a large timeslice and access to memory, but I don't 
actually see the priority getting bumped at all.  It appears the comment 
is inaccurate.

Should the process actually get its priority bumped up as well so that 
it can process its own death faster?  The reason I ask is that we're 
seeing some oom-killed processes taking a very long time (multiple 
seconds) to actually die.

Chris
-
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/