[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151001150010.GB6781@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:00:10 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Kyle Walker <kwalker@...hat.com>,
Stanislav Kozina <skozina@...hat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm v2 1/3] mm/oom_kill: remove the wrong
fatal_signal_pending() check in oom_kill_process()
On 10/01, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Wed 30-09-15 20:24:05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> [...]
> > It is possible that the group leader
> > has the pending SIGKILL because its sub-thread originated the coredump,
> > in this case we must not skip this process.
>
> I do not understand this. If the group leader has SIGKILL pending it
> will die anyway regardless whether we send another sigkill or not, no?
Yes it will die, but only after the coredump is finished.
Suppose we have a thread group with the group leader P and another
thread T. If T starts the coredump, it sends SIGKILL to P and waits
until it parks in exit_mm(). Then T actually dumps the core which may
need more memory, a lot of time, etc.
We need to kill this process. Yes, P is already killed and it sleeps
in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE so this thread does not need SIGKILL. But
do_send_sig_info(P) will also find T and kill it too to make
dump_interrupted() == T.
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