[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=YnG7tYCSrCPTNSQANOkD2MkP0tMjbOyZbx4NG@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:35:52 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Frantisek Hrbata <fhrbata@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 for 2.6.38] oom: oom_kill_process: don't set
TIF_MEMDIE if !p->mm
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> oom_kill_process() simply sets TIF_MEMDIE and returns if PF_EXITING.
> This is very wrong by many reasons. In particular, this thread can
> be the dead group leader. Check p->mm != NULL.
Explain more, please. Maybe I'm missing some context because I wasn't
cc'd on the original thread, but PF_EXITING gets set by exit_signal(),
and exit_mm() is called almost immediately afterwards which will set
p->mm to NULL.
So afaik, this will basically just remove the whole point of the code
entirely - so why not remove it then?
The combination of testing PF_EXITING and p->mm just doesn't seem to
make any sense.
Linus
--
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