[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1004011156040.30661@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
anfei <anfei.zhou@...il.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] oom: give current access to memory reserves if it has
been killed
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ static int oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> > * its children or threads, just set TIF_MEMDIE so it can die quickly
> > */
> > if (p->flags & PF_EXITING) {
> > - __oom_kill_task(p);
> > + set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
>
> So, probably this makes sense anyway but not strictly necessary, up to you.
>
It matches the already-existing comment that only says we need to set
TIF_MEMDIE so it can quickly exit rather than call __oom_kill_task(), so
it seems worthwhile.
> > if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
> > - __oom_kill_task(current);
> > + set_tsk_thread_flag(current, TIF_MEMDIE);
>
> Yes, I think this fix is needed.
>
Ok, I'll add your acked-by and send this to Andrew with a follow-up that
consolidates __oom_kill_task() into oom_kill_task(), thanks.
--
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