On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 16:28:01 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, David Rientjes wrote: > > > It's pointless to try to kill current if select_bad_process() did not > > find an eligible task to kill in mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() since it's > > guaranteed that current is a member of the memcg that is oom and it is, > > by definition, unkillable. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > mm/oom_kill.c | 5 +---- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > > @@ -500,12 +500,9 @@ void mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *mem, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > read_lock(&tasklist_lock); > > retry: > > p = select_bad_process(&points, limit, mem, CONSTRAINT_NONE, NULL); > > - if (PTR_ERR(p) == -1UL) > > + if (!p || PTR_ERR(p) == -1UL) > > goto out; > > > > - if (!p) > > - p = current; > > - > > if (oom_kill_process(p, gfp_mask, 0, points, limit, mem, > > "Memory cgroup out of memory")) > > goto retry; > > > > Are there any objections to merging this? It's pretty straight-forward > given the fact that oom_kill_process() would fail if select_bad_process() > returns NULL even if p is set to current since it was not found to be > eligible during the tasklist scan. I've lost the plot on the oom-killer patches. Half the things I'm seeing don't even apply. Perhaps I should drop the lot and we start again. We still haven't resolved the procfs back-compat issue, either. -- 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>