On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Andrew Morton wrote: > And I wonder if David has observed some problem which the 2010 change > fixes! > Yes, as explained in my changelog. I'll paste it: Tasks that do not share the same set of allowed nodes with the task that triggered the oom should not be considered as candidates for oom kill. Tasks in other cpusets with a disjoint set of mems would be unfairly penalized otherwise because of oom conditions elsewhere; an extreme example could unfairly kill all other applications on the system if a single task in a user's cpuset sets itself to OOM_DISABLE and then uses more memory than allowed. Killing tasks outside of current's cpuset rarely would free memory for current anyway. To use a sane heuristic, we must ensure that killing a task would likely free memory for current and avoid needlessly killing others at all costs just because their potential memory freeing is unknown. It is better to kill current than another task needlessly. -- 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>