On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 16:17:47 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri 20-07-18 17:09:02, Andrew Morton wrote: > [...] > > - Undocumented return value. > > > > - comment "failed to reap part..." is misleading - sounds like it's > > referring to something which happened in the past, is in fact > > referring to something which might happen in the future. > > > > - fails to call trace_finish_task_reaping() in one case > > > > - code duplication. > > > > - Increases mmap_sem hold time a little by moving > > trace_finish_task_reaping() inside the locked region. So sue me ;) > > > > - Sharing the finish: path means that the trace event won't > > distinguish between the two sources of finishing. > > > > Please take a look? > > oom_reap_task_mm should return false when __oom_reap_task_mm return > false. This is what my patch did but it seems this changed by > http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/mm-oom-remove-oom_lock-from-oom_reaper.patch > so that one should be fixed. > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > index 104ef4a01a55..88657e018714 100644 > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > @@ -565,7 +565,7 @@ static bool oom_reap_task_mm(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm) > /* failed to reap part of the address space. Try again later */ > if (!__oom_reap_task_mm(mm)) { > up_read(&mm->mmap_sem); > - return true; > + return false; > } > > pr_info("oom_reaper: reaped process %d (%s), now anon-rss:%lukB, file-rss:%lukB, shmem-rss:%lukB\n", OK, thanks, I added that. > > On top of that the proposed cleanup looks as follows: > Looks good to me. Seems a bit strange that we omit the pr_info() output if the mm was partially reaped - people would still want to know this? Not very important though.
