On Fri 30-09-16 14:47:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/30, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> >
> > @@ -423,7 +424,9 @@ static int coredump_wait(int exit_code, struct core_state *core_state)
> > if (core_waiters > 0) {
> > struct core_thread *ptr;
> >
> > + freezer_do_not_count();
> > wait_for_completion(&core_state->startup);
> > + freezer_count();
>
> Agreed... we could probably even do
>
> --- x/fs/coredump.c
> +++ x/fs/coredump.c
> @@ -423,7 +423,13 @@ static int coredump_wait(int exit_code,
> if (core_waiters > 0) {
> struct core_thread *ptr;
>
> - wait_for_completion(&core_state->startup);
> + if (wait_for_completion_interruptible(&core_state->startup)) {
> + /* see the comment in dump_interrupted() */
> + down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + coredump_finish(mm, false);
> + up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + return -EINTR;
> + }
> /*
> * Wait for all the threads to become inactive, so that
> * all the thread context (extended register state, like
This looks like a very good idea to me. We really want to make the whole
coredump_wait killable. I guess this should help us to remove the
hackish sig->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP check from
__task_will_free_mem. Or are there any other problems that would make
oom victims in the middle of coredump problematic?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
