[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140912235935.GB28183@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 08:59:35 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/2] freezer: check OOM kill while being frozen
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 06:30:04PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I am wondering if the folllowing check makes any sense with regarding
> > to rule out PM freeze:
> >
> > if ((!pm_nosig_freezing && !pm_freezing) &&
> > cgroup_freezing(current) && test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
> > return true;
Doesn't this mean that if PM freezing and OOM killing race each other,
the system may hang? Driver PM operation may try to allocate memory
-> triggers OOM -> OOM killer selects an already frozen task ->
nothing happens. I wonder whether OOM killing and PM operations
should be mutually exclusive at a higher level. e.g. make OOM killing
always override freezing but let hibernation abort operation before
taking snapshot if OOM killing has happened since the beginning of the
PM operation.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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