[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070607171018.d51fc5da.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:10:18 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
Cc: Will Schmidt <will_schmidt@...t.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, liuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [PATCH i386] during VM oom condition, kill all
threads in process group
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:16:21 -0500
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.
> >
> > If we're going to do this then we should probably create some new function
> > (with a better name) which takes tasklsit_lock and then calls
> > zap_other_threads().
> >
> > Does this patch fix any observed-in-the-real-world problem? If so, please
> > describe it.
>
> Yeah we have had complaints where threaded apps have only one thread
> shot down instead of the entire process. This leaves the application in
> a bad state, whereas if it had been killed cleanly the application could
> have restarted.
>
> My understanding is that fatal signals should kill all threads in the
> group.
>
OK, well could we please get all that info appropriatelt captured in #2's
changelog?
Other architectures will probably need to implement this.
-
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