Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 May 2009 16:36:47 -0700 | Subject | Re: [patch 1/5] oom: cleanup android low memory killer | From | Arve Hjønnevåg <> |
| |
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/
| |