Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 May 2009 16:16:26 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/5] oom: cleanup android low memory killer |
| |
On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 04:12:57PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Greg KH wrote: > > > > This patch in the series is really more of a convenience than anything > > > else since it doesn't change anything functionally. I had to modify the > > > lowmemorykiller later because there's a potential for a NULL pointer from > > > dereferencing p->mm without holding task_lock(p) and also because I moved > > > oomkilladj from struct task_struct to struct mm_struct. > > > > Is this still the case on top of Arve's changes? > > > > Yeah, the first of two patches Arve just sent is broken:
Ok, care to work with Arve to come up with a series that both of you agree will work properly?
> > Right now, people are still arguing that the android low memory driver > > is not needed, but something is, yet no one has proposed a viable > > solution for all parties :( > > > > There was an interest in a low mem userspace notifier that applications > can poll() on at configurable low mem levels to react accordingly. This > would probably address the problem that the Android team is trying to fix.
Yes, I think it would.
> Regardless, my patchset includes two fixes for current bugs in the oom > killer: a possible NULL pointer when /proc/sys/vm/oom_dump_tasks is > enabled and a possible livelock when killing a task that shares memory > with an OOM_DISABLE task. I'm not really interested in seeing who can get > their patches into the staging tree first, I'm more concerned about fixing > the oom killer.
Agreed, working with Arve on this would be most appreciated.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |