[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100118172032.5F1C.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:21:21 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: OOM-Killed process don't invoke pagefault-oom
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 03:21:40PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I don't think this should be required, because the oom killer does not
> > > kill a new task if there is already one in memdie state.
> > >
> > > If you have any further tweaks to the heuristic (such as a fatal signal
> > > pending), then it should probably go in select_bad_process() or
> > > somewhere like that.
> >
> > I see, I misunderstood. very thanks.
>
> Well, it *might* be a good idea to check for fatal signal pending
> similar your patch. Because I think there could be large latency between
> the signal and the task moving to exit state if the process is waiting
> uninterruptible in the kernel for a while.
>
> But if you do it in select_bad_process() then it would work for all
> classes of oom kill.
Thank you for good advise. I'll make next version so :)
--
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