On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 01:17:14PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > > @@ -828,6 +828,12 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim) > > > > struct mm_struct *mm; > > > > bool can_oom_reap = true; > > > > > > > > + if (is_global_init(victim) || (victim->flags & PF_KTHREAD) || > > > > + victim->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN) { > > > > + put_task_struct(victim); > > > > + return; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > p = find_lock_task_mm(victim); > > > > if (!p) { > > > > put_task_struct(victim); > > > > > > Is this necessary? The callers of this function use oom_badness() to > > > find a victim, and that filters init, kthread, OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN. > > > > It is. __oom_kill_process() is used to kill all processes belonging > > to the selected memory cgroup, so we should perform these checks > > to avoid killing unkillable processes. > > > > That's only true after the next patch in the series which uses the > oom_kill_memcg_member() callback to kill processes for oom_group, correct? > Would it be possible to move this check to that patch so it's more > obvious? Yup, I realized it when reviewing the next patch. Moving this hunk to the next patch would probably make sense. Although, us reviewers have been made aware of this now, so I don't feel strongly about it. Won't make much of a difference once the patches are merged. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html