[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201601080038.CIF04698.VFJHSOQLOFFMOt@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 00:38:43 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@...nel.org
Cc: rientjes@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...e.de,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com,
andrea@...nel.org, riel@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Exclude TIF_MEMDIE processes from candidates.
Michal Hocko wrote:
> @@ -333,6 +333,14 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(struct oom_control *oc,
> if (points == chosen_points && thread_group_leader(chosen))
> continue;
>
> + /*
> + * If the current major task is already ooom killed and this
> + * is sysrq+f request then we rather choose somebody else
> + * because the current oom victim might be stuck.
> + */
> + if (is_sysrq_oom(sc) && test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE))
> + continue;
> +
> chosen = p;
> chosen_points = points;
> }
Do we want to require SysRq-f for each thread in a process?
If g has 1024 p, dump_tasks() will do
pr_info("[%5d] %5d %5d %8lu %8lu %7ld %7ld %8lu %5hd %s\n",
for 1024 times? I think one SysRq-f per one process is sufficient.
How can we guarantee that find_lock_task_mm() from oom_kill_process()
chooses !TIF_MEMDIE thread when try_to_sacrifice_child() somehow chose
!TIF_MEMDIE thread? I think choosing !TIF_MEMDIE thread at
find_lock_task_mm() is the simplest way.
--
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