[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100701133846.GA16383@barrios-desktop>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 22:38:46 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] oom: oom_kill_process() doesn't select kthread
child
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 09:07:02AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:27:52PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > Now, select_bad_process() have PF_KTHREAD check, but oom_kill_process
> > > doesn't. It mean oom_kill_process() may choose wrong task, especially,
> > > when the child are using use_mm().
> >
> > Is it possible child is kthread even though parent isn't kthread?
>
> Usually unhappen. but crappy driver can do any strange thing freely.
> As I said, oom code should have conservative assumption as far as possible.
Okay. You change the check with oom_unkillable_task at last.
The oom_unkillable_task is generic function so that the kthread check in
oom_kill_process is tivial, I think.
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
>
>
>
--
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