On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 02:44:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, npiggin@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > As explained in commit 1c0fe6e3bd, we want to call the architecture independent > > oom killer when getting an unexplained OOM from handle_mm_fault, rather than > > simply killing current. > > > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > Index: linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c > > +++ linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c > > @@ -359,15 +359,10 @@ bad_area_nosemaphore: > > */ > > out_of_memory: > > up_read(&mm->mmap_sem); > > - if (is_global_init(current)) { > > - yield(); > > - down_read(&mm->mmap_sem); > > - goto survive; > > - } > > - printk("VM: killing process %s\n", current->comm); > > - if (user_mode(regs)) > > - do_group_exit(SIGKILL); > > - return SIGKILL; > > + if (!user_mode(regs)) > > + return SIGKILL; > > + pagefault_out_of_memory(); > > + return 0; > > Do we really want to return 0 and indicate that the fault was handled? It > seems more consistent to do > > if (user_mode(regs)) > pagefault_out_of_memory(); > return SIGKILL; Well we don't necessarily want to kill current. pagefault_out_of_memory() could elect to send a SIGKILL if wants to, but if it decides current should not be terminated, then we have to just retry the page fault. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html