lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:11:33 +0400
From:	Kirill Tkhai <>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc:	Fengguang Wu <>,
	Dave Hansen <>,
	LKML <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [sched] Out of memory: Kill process 2999 (rc) score 9 or sacrifice child

10.08.2014, 19:31, "Oleg Nesterov" <>:
> On 08/09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>  That would suggest we're failing to do the TASK_DEAD thing properly, and
>>  ARGH! bloody obvious why, see the this_rq() comment right before the
>>  finish_task_switch() call in context_switch().
> Off-topic, but perhaps we can make this a bit more clear?
> Hmm. But after I actually did this change I can't understand if it makes
> this more clean or uglifies the code. See the patch below.
> OTOH, "int cpu" in __schedule() looks pointless and should die? Both
> rcu_note_context_switch() and wq_worker_sleeping() can use
> raw_smp_processor_id() ? In fact I think wq_worker_sleeping() doesn't
> need the "task" argument too.
> And... Doesn't schedule_tail() need preempt_enable() before
> finish_task_switch() ? IOW, shouldn't it do
>         #ifndef __ARCH_WANT_UNLOCKED_CTXSW
>                 preempt_disable();
>         #endif
>                 finish_task_switch();
>                 post_schedule(rq);
>                 preempt_enable();
> or I am totally confused?

You're sure, this was discussed here:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists