[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160615143701.GA7944@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:37:01 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] mm, oom: hide mm which is shared with kthread or
global init
Michal,
I am going to ack the whole series, but send some nits/questions,
On 06/09, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> @@ -283,10 +283,22 @@ enum oom_scan_t oom_scan_process_thread(struct oom_control *oc,
>
> /*
> * This task already has access to memory reserves and is being killed.
> - * Don't allow any other task to have access to the reserves.
> + * Don't allow any other task to have access to the reserves unless
> + * the task has MMF_OOM_REAPED because chances that it would release
> + * any memory is quite low.
> */
> - if (!is_sysrq_oom(oc) && atomic_read(&task->signal->oom_victims))
> - return OOM_SCAN_ABORT;
> + if (!is_sysrq_oom(oc) && atomic_read(&task->signal->oom_victims)) {
> + struct task_struct *p = find_lock_task_mm(task);
> + enum oom_scan_t ret = OOM_SCAN_ABORT;
> +
> + if (p) {
> + if (test_bit(MMF_OOM_REAPED, &p->mm->flags))
> + ret = OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE;
> + task_unlock(p);
OK, but perhaps it would be beter to change oom_badness() to return zero if
MMF_OOM_REAPED is set?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists