[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090511143906.1cde5f6e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:39:06 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: gregkh@...e.de, npiggin@...e.de, mel@....ul.ie,
a.p.ziljstra@...llo.nl, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, san@...roid.com, arve@...roid.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 10/11 -mmotm] oom: avoid oom kill if no interruptible
tasks
On Sun, 10 May 2009 15:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> If there are no interruptible system tasks other than kthreads,
It's unclear what the term "system task" means. Just "task"?
> no task
> should be chosen for oom kill since they won't respond to the SIGKILL
> anyway. Instead, we choose to simply fail page allocations if reclaim
> cannot free memory and hope for the best.
But plain old user processes enter and leave D state all the time. The
task may well just be sitting there waiting for a disk read to
complete. It will respond to the SIGKILL shortly after the IO
completes, so an appropriate action here is to just wait for that to
happen.
--
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