On Thu 26-03-15 07:24:45, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:15:48PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Johannes Weiner wrote: [...] > > > /* > > > - * Acquire the oom lock. If that fails, somebody else is > > > - * making progress for us. > > > + * This allocating task can become the OOM victim itself at > > > + * any point before acquiring the lock. In that case, exit > > > + * quickly and don't block on the lock held by another task > > > + * waiting for us to exit. > > > */ > > > - if (!mutex_trylock(&oom_lock)) { > > > - *did_some_progress = 1; > > > - schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1); > > > - return NULL; > > > + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) || mutex_lock_killable(&oom_lock)) { > > > + alloc_flags |= ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS; > > > + goto alloc; > > > } > > > > When a thread group has 1000 threads and most of them are doing memory allocation > > request, all of them will get fatal_signal_pending() == true when one of them are > > chosen by OOM killer. > > This code will allow most of them to access memory reserves, won't it? > > Ah, good point! Only TIF_MEMDIE should get reserve access, not just > any dying thread. Thanks, I'll fix it in v2. Do you plan to post this v2 here for review? [...] -- 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