Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:31:04 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [patch -mm v2] mm: introduce oom_adj_child |
| |
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> 1. IIUC, the name is strange. > > At job scheduler, which does this. > > if (vfork() == 0) { > /* do some job */ > execve(.....) > } > > Then, when oom_adj_child can be effective is after execve(). > IIUC, the _child_ means a process created by vfork(). >
It's certainly a difficult thing to name and I don't claim that "child" is completely accurate since, as you said, vfork'd tasks are also children of the parent yet they share the same oom_adj value since it's an attribute of the shared mm.
If you have suggestions for a better name, I'd happily ack it.
> 2. More simple plan is like this, IIUC. > > fix oom-killer's select_bad_process() not to be in deadlock. >
Alternate ideas?
> rather than this new stupid interface. >
Well, thank you. Regardless of whether you think it's stupid or not, it doesn't allow you to livelock the kernel in a very trivial way when the oom killer gets invoked prior to execve() and the parent is OOM_DISABLE.
| |