[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] OOM killer: wait for tasks with pending SIGKILL to exit
It seems to me that we are going nowhere with this discussion...

If you are ok with the first change in my patch regarding fatal_signal_pending,
I can send new patch with just that change.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013, Sergey Dyasly wrote:
> > What you are saying contradicts current OOMk code the way I read it. Comment in
> > oom_kill_process() says:
> >
> > "If the task is already exiting ... set TIF_MEMDIE so it can die quickly"
> >
> > I just want to know the right solution.
> >
> That's a comment, not code. The point of the PF_EXITING special handling
> in oom_kill_process() is to avoid telling sysadmins that a process has
> been killed to free memory when it has already called exit() and to avoid
> sacrificing one of its children for the exiting process.
> It may or may not need access to memory reserves to actually exit after
> PF_EXITING depending on whether it needs to allocate memory for
> coredumping or anything else. So instead of waiting for it to recall the
> oom killer, TIF_MEMDIE is set anyway. The point is that PF_EXITING
> processes can already get TIF_MEMDIE immediately when their memory
> allocation fails so there's no reason not to set it now as an
> optimization.
> But we definitely want to avoid printing anything to the kernel log when
> the process has already called exit() and issuing the SIGKILL at that
> point would be pointless.
> > You are mistaken, oom_kill_process() is only called from out_of_memory()
> > and mem_cgroup_out_of_memory().
> >
> out_of_memory() calls oom_kill_process() in two places, plus the call from
> mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(), making three calls in the tree. Not that this
> matters in the slightest, though.
> > > Read the comment about why we don't emit anything to the kernel log in
> > > this case; the process is already exiting, there's no need to kill it or
> > > make anyone believe that it was killed.
> >
> > Yes, but there is already the PF_EXITING check in oom_scan_process_thread(),
> > and in this case oom_kill_process() won't be even called. That's why it's
> > redundant.
> >
> You apparently have no idea how long select_bad_process() runs on a large
> system with thousands of processes. Keep in mind that SGI requested the
> addition of the oom_kill_allocating_task sysctl specifically because of
> how long select_bad_process() runs. The PF_EXITING check in
> oom_kill_process() is simply an optimization to return early and with
> access to memory reserves so it can exit as quickly as possible and
> without the kernel stating it's killing something that has already called
> exit().

Sergey Dyasly <>

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-01 17:41    [W:0.072 / U:11.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site