[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160309223000.GB3647@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:30:00 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]
oom-clear-tif_memdie-after-oom_reaper-managed-to-unmap-the-address-space-fix
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 01:21:42PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I found the below patch lying around but I didn't queue it properly.
> Is it legit?
Yeah. Michal suggested this should be its own patch, which I agree
with. The subject would then be:
Subject: mm: oom_kill: don't ignore oom score on exiting tasks
> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Subject: oom-clear-tif_memdie-after-oom_reaper-managed-to-unmap-the-address-space-fix
>
> When the OOM killer scans tasks and encounters a PF_EXITING one, it
> force-selects that one regardless of the score. Is there a possibility
> that the task might hang after it has set PF_EXITING? In that case the
> OOM killer should be able to move on to the next task.
>
> Frankly, I don't even know why we check for exiting tasks in the OOM
> killer. We've tried direct reclaim at least 15 times by the time we
> decide the system is OOM, there was plenty of time to exit and free
> memory; and a task might exit voluntarily right after we issue a kill.
> This is testing pure noise.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists