[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160217134441.GL29196@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:44:41 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rientjes@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
oleg@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hughd@...gle.com,
andrea@...nel.org, riel@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they
are OOM-unkillable.
On Wed 17-02-16 22:36:47, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> Are you suggesting something like below?
> (OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN check needs to be done after TIF_MEMDIE check)
>
> enum oom_scan_t oom_scan_process_thread(struct oom_control *oc,
> struct task_struct *task, unsigned long totalpages)
> {
> if (oom_unkillable_task(task, NULL, oc->nodemask))
> return OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE;
>
> /*
> * This task already has access to memory reserves and is being killed.
> * Don't allow any other task to have access to the reserves.
> */
> if (test_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_MEMDIE)) {
> if (!is_sysrq_oom(oc))
> return OOM_SCAN_ABORT;
> }
> if (!task->mm || task->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN)
> return OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE;
yes
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists