[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091215100342.e77c8cbe.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:03:42 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, lwoodman@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] mm: Give up allocation if the task have fatal
signal
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:50:47 +0900 (JST)
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > /*
> > > + * If the allocation is for userland page and we have fatal signal,
> > > + * there isn't any reason to continue allocation. instead, the task
> > > + * should exit soon.
> > > + */
> > > + if (fatal_signal_pending(current) && (gfp_mask & __GFP_HIGHMEM))
> > > + goto nopage;
> >
> > If we jump nopage, we meets dump_stack and show_mem.
> > Even, we can meet OOM which might kill innocent process.
>
> Which point you oppose? noprint is better?
>
>
Sorry fot not clarity.
My point was following as.
First,
I don't want to print.
Why do we print stack and mem when the process receives the SIGKILL?
Second,
1) A process try to allocate anon page in do_anonymous_page.
2) A process receives SIGKILL.
3) kernel doesn't allocate page to A process by your patch.
4) do_anonymous_page returns VF_FAULT_OOM.
5) call mm_fault_error
6) call out_of_memory
7) It migth kill innocent task.
If I missed something, Pz, corret me. :)
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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