lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [patch 1/5] oom: cleanup android low memory killer
    From
    On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
    > 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?

    Yes, that patch only addresses the issues brought up last time this
    driver was discussed.

    >
    >> > 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.
    >

    Possibly, but waking up a user space code when running out of memory
    may need even more memory to be freed.

    >> 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.

    I have no problem with the patch that adds task_lock and I can add the
    same change myself if you prefer, but the code cleanup patch will
    cause unnecessary conflicts for us.

    --
    Arve Hjønnevåg
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-05 01:39    [W:2.882 / U:0.188 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site