Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:31:54 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |