On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > @@ -447,19 +450,27 @@ static int oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > - printk(KERN_ERR "%s: kill process %d (%s) score %li or a child\n",
> > - message, task_pid_nr(p), p->comm, points);
> > + pr_err("%s: Kill process %d (%s) with score %lu or sacrifice child\n",
> > + message, task_pid_nr(p), p->comm, points);
> >
> > - /* Try to kill a child first */
> > + do_posix_clock_monotonic_gettime(&uptime);
> > + /* Try to sacrifice the worst child first */
> > list_for_each_entry(c, &p->children, sibling) {
> > + unsigned long cpoints;
> > +
> > if (c->mm == p->mm)
> > continue;
> > if (mem && !task_in_mem_cgroup(c, mem))
> > continue;
> > - if (!oom_kill_task(c))
> > - return 0;
> > +
>
> need to the check of cpuset (and memplicy) memory intersection here, probably.
> otherwise, this may selected innocence task.
>
I'll do this, then, if you don't want to post your own patch. Fine.
> also, OOM_DISABL check is necessary?
>
No, badness() is 0 for tasks that are OOM_DISABLE.
--
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>