[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110830161743.GC22754@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:17:43 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <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
Subject: Re: mm->oom_disable_count is broken
On 08/29, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> I actually really wanted oom_score_adj to be in the ->mm, it would
> simplify a lot of the code :) The problem was the inheritance property:
> we expect a job scheduler that is OOM_DISABLE to be able to vfork, change
> the oom_score_adj of the child, and then exec so that it is not oom
> disabled before starting to allocate memory.
Ah, I see. Thanks.
And yes, now I recall this is what you already explained ;)
Damn.
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