[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160615150321.GD7944@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:03:21 +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 04/10] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have
same view of oom_score_adj
On 06/09, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> + if (!p->vfork_done && process_shares_mm(p, mm)) {
> + pr_info("updating oom_score_adj for %d (%s) from %d to %d because it shares mm with %d (%s). Report if this is unexpected.\n",
> + task_pid_nr(p), p->comm,
> + p->signal->oom_score_adj, oom_adj,
> + task_pid_nr(task), task->comm);
> + p->signal->oom_score_adj = oom_adj;
Personally I like this change.
And. I think after this change we can actually move ->oom_score_adj into mm_struct,
but lets discuss this later.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists