[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUFAvNn0--i-t_8TU4tcKQTzmqyP5uNgrOecv30Z=udRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 17:34:39 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] freezer: check OOM kill signal while being frozen
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> OK, so the system/memcg is still OOM and a new allocation/charge
> would trigger killer again, right? Then oom_scan_process_thread sees
> TIF_MEMDIE frozen task and thaw it so it can go away and die. So this
> shouldn't be a permanent state. Or am I missing something?
>
Good point!
Reading the code again, I think David's commit (f660daac) doesn't
work any more, __thaw_task() just checks if it's frozen and then wakes
it up, but the frozen task, after waking up, will check if it's freezing() and
continue to freeze itself if so. __thaw_task() can't make freezing() return
false since it doesn't change any of these conditions, especially
cgroup_freezing().
This reminds me I should revert that code in oom_killer, checking
TIF_MEMDIE in __refrigerator() is more correct and clear.
I will update my patch.
Thanks!
--
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