On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Reviewers may observe that the previous implementation would iterate
> > through the children and attempt to kill each until one was successful and
> > then the parent if none were found while the new code simply kills the
> > most memory-hogging task or the parent. Note that the only time
> > oom_kill_task() fails, however, is when a child does not have an mm or has
> > a /proc/pid/oom_adj of OOM_DISABLE. badness() returns 0 for both cases,
> > so the final oom_kill_task() will always succeed.
>
> probably we need to call has_intersects_mems_allowed() in this loop. likes
>
> /* Try to sacrifice the worst child first */
> do {
> list_for_each_entry(c, &t->children, sibling) {
> unsigned long cpoints;
>
> if (c->mm == p->mm)
> continue;
> if (oom_unkillable(c, mem, nodemask))
> continue;
>
> /* oom_badness() returns 0 if the thread is unkillable */
> cpoints = oom_badness(c);
> if (cpoints > victim_points) {
> victim = c;
> victim_points = cpoints;
> }
> }
> } while_each_thread(p, t);
>
>
> It mean we shouldn't assume parent and child have the same mems_allowed,
> perhaps.
>
I'd be happy to have that in oom_kill_process() if you pass the
enum oom_constraint and only do it for CONSTRAINT_CPUSET. Please add a
followup patch to my latest patch series.
--
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>