[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181022104341.GY18839@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:43:41 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
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 Mon 22-10-18 18:42:30, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> 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.
Why would it be too late? Or in other words why would this be harmful?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists