[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110829183743.GA15216@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:37:43 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: rientjes@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, roland@...k.frob.com, tj@...nel.org,
dvlasenk@...hat.com, matt.fleming@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avagin@...nvz.org,
fhrbata@...hat.com, yinghan@...gle.com
Subject: Re: mm->oom_disable_count is broken
On 08/01, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> > And this reminds me. mm->oom_disable_count looks absolutely broken.
> > IIRC, I already complained but nobody replied.
> >
> > [...snip...]
>
> IIRC, I did pointed out this issue. But nobody replied.
> I think ->oom_disable_count is currently broken. but now I have no time to
> audit this stuff. So, I'd suggest to revert this code if nobody don't fix it.
I tend to agree, of course we can fix oom_disable_count but I don't
really understand why do we want it.
David, could you please explain? I mean, CLONE_VM (without CLONE_THREAD)
is not that common, I think. Does this counter really help in practice?
And. personally I dislike it because ->oom_disable_count is just another
proof that ->oom_score_adj should be in ->mm, not per-process. IIRC,
you already explained me why we can't do this, but - sorry - I forgot.
May be something with vfork... Could you explain this again?
Oleg.
--
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