[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f5b257f9-47a5-e071-02fa-ce901bd34b04@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 18:42:30 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: marks all killed tasks as oom victims
On 2018/10/22 17:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 22-10-18 16:58:50, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
>>> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
>>> @@ -898,6 +898,7 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim)
>>> if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
>>> continue;
>>> do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
>>> + mark_oom_victim(p);
>>> }
>>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Wrong. Either
>
> You are right. The mm might go away between process_shares_mm and here.
> While your find_lock_task_mm would be correct I believe we can do better
> by using the existing mm that we already have. I will make it a separate
> patch to clarity.
Still wrong. p->mm == NULL means that we are too late to set TIF_MEMDIE
on that thread. Passing non-NULL mm to mark_oom_victim() won't help.
> @@ -898,7 +897,7 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim)
> if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> continue;
> do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> - mark_oom_victim(p);
> + mark_oom_victim(p, mm);
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists