Sorry for the delay. > On 06/04, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > On 06/04, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > > > In multi threaded OOM case, we have two problematic routine, coredump > > > and vmscan. Roland's idea can only solve the former. > > > > > > But I also interest vmscan quickly exit if OOM received. > > > > Yes, agreed. See another email from me, MMF_ flags looks "obviously > > useful" to me. > > Well. But somehow we forgot about the !coredumping case... Suppose > that select_bad_process() chooses the process P to kill and we have > other processes (not sub-threads) which share the same ->mm. Ah, yes. I think you are correct. > In that case I am not sure we should blindly set MMF_OOMKILL. Suppose > that we kill P and after that the "out-of-memory" condition goes away. > But its ->mm still has MMF_OOMKILL set, and it is used. Who/when will > clear this flag? > > Perhaps something like below makes sense for now. Probably, this works. at least I don't find any problems. But umm... Do you mean we can't implement per-process oom flags? example, 1) back to implement signal->oom_victim because We are using SIGKILL for OOM and struct signal naturally represent signal target. 2) mm->nr_oom_killed_task just avoid simple flag. instead counting number of tasks of oom-killed. I think both avoid your explained problem. Am I missing something? But, again, I have no objection to your patch. because I really hope to fix coredump vs oom issue. -- 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>