[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150921135704.GA17804@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:57:04 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Raymond Jennings <shentino@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kyle Walker <kwalker@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stanislav Kozina <skozina@...hat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: can't oom-kill zap the victim's memory?
On 09/20, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>
> On 09/20/15 11:05, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> which can be called from just about any context (but atomic
>> allocations will never get here, so it can schedule etc).
>
> I think in this case the oom killer should just slap a SIGKILL on the
> task and then back out, and whatever needed the memory should just wait
> patiently for the sacrificial lamb to commit seppuku.
Not sure I understand you correctly, but this is what we currently do.
The only problem is that this doesn't work sometimes.
> Also, I observed that a task in the middle of dumping core doesn't
> respond to signals while it's dumping,
How did you observe this? The coredumping is killable.
Although yes, we have problems here in oom condition. In particular
with CLONE_VM tasks.
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