On 06/02, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > Again, the question is whether or not the fix is rc material or not, > > > otherwise there's no difference in the route that it gets upstream: the > > > patch is duplicated in both series. If you feel that this minor issue > > > (which has never been reported in at least the last three years and > > > doesn't have any side effects other than a couple of millisecond delay > > > until unuse_mm() when the oom killer will kill something else) should be > > > addressed in 2.6.35-rc2, then that's a conversation to be had with Andrew. > > > > Well, we have bugfix-at-first development rule. Why do you refuse our > > development process? > > This isn't a bugfix, it simply prevents a recall to the oom killer after > the kthread has called unuse_mm(). Please show where any side effects of > oom killing a kthread, which cannot exit, as a result of use_mm() causes a > problem _anywhere_. I already showed you the side effects, but you removed this part in your reply. >From http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127542732121077 It can't die but force_sig() does bad things which shouldn't be done with workqueue thread. Note that it removes SIG_IGN, sets SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT, makes signal_pending/fatal_signal_pedning true, etc. A workqueue thread must not run with SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT set, SIGKILL must be ignored, signal_pending() must not be true. This is bug. It is minor, agreed, currently use_mm() is only used by aio. Oleg. -- 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>