lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: exclude oom_task_origin processes if they are OOM-unkillable.
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Tetsuo Handa wrote:

> oom_scan_process_thread() returns OOM_SCAN_SELECT when there is a
> thread which returns oom_task_origin() == true. But it is possible
> that such thread is marked as OOM-unkillable. In that case, the OOM
> killer must not select such process.
>
> Since it is meaningless to return OOM_SCAN_OK for OOM-unkillable
> process because subsequent oom_badness() call will return 0, this
> patch changes oom_scan_process_thread to return OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE
> if that process is marked as OOM-unkillable (regardless of
> oom_task_origin()).
>
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
> ---
> mm/oom_kill.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 7653055..cf87153 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ enum oom_scan_t oom_scan_process_thread(struct oom_control *oc,
> if (!is_sysrq_oom(oc))
> return OOM_SCAN_ABORT;
> }
> - if (!task->mm)
> + if (!task->mm || task->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN)
> return OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE;
>
> /*

I'm getting multiple emails from you with the identical patch, something
is definitely wacky in your toolchain.

Anyway, this is NACK'd since task->signal->oom_score_adj is checked under
task_lock() for threads with memory attached, that's the purpose of
finding the correct thread in oom_badness() and taking task_lock(). We
aren't going to duplicate logic in several functions that all do the same
thing.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-18 00:01    [W:0.129 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site