[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091215101512.CDC4.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:16:53 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.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. :)
Doh, you are complely right. I had forgot recent meaning change of VM_FAULT_OOM.
yes, this patch is crap. I need to remake it.
--
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