[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160615144835.GB7944@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:48:35 +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 09/10] mm, oom_reaper: do not attempt to reap a task more
than twice
On 06/09, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> @@ -556,8 +556,27 @@ static void oom_reap_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
> schedule_timeout_idle(HZ/10);
>
> if (attempts > MAX_OOM_REAP_RETRIES) {
> + struct task_struct *p;
> +
> pr_info("oom_reaper: unable to reap pid:%d (%s)\n",
> task_pid_nr(tsk), tsk->comm);
> +
> + /*
> + * If we've already tried to reap this task in the past and
> + * failed it probably doesn't make much sense to try yet again
> + * so hide the mm from the oom killer so that it can move on
> + * to another task with a different mm struct.
> + */
> + p = find_lock_task_mm(tsk);
> + if (p) {
> + if (test_and_set_bit(MMF_OOM_NOT_REAPABLE, &p->mm->flags)) {
> + pr_info("oom_reaper: giving up pid:%d (%s)\n",
> + task_pid_nr(tsk), tsk->comm);
> + set_bit(MMF_OOM_REAPED, &p->mm->flags);
But why do we need MMF_OOM_NOT_REAPABLE? We set MMF_OOM_REAPED, oom_reap_task()
should not see this task again, at least too often.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists