On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:55 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Minchan Kim wrote: > >> My point was following as. >> We try to kill child of OOMed task at first. >> But we can't know any locked state of child when OOM happens. > > We don't need to, child->alloc_lock can be contended in which case we'll > just spin but it won't stay locked because we're out of memory. In other > words, nothing takes task_lock(child) and then waits for memory to become > available while holding it, that would be fundamentally broken. So there > is a dependency here and that is that task_lock(current) can't be taken in > the page allocator because we'll deadlock in the oom killer, but that > isn't anything new. I understand it so I don't oppose Kame's original patch from now on. :) Thanks for kind explanation. David. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href