On 06/13, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > On 06/04, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > 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? Sorry, can't understand what you mean. > example, > 1) back to implement signal->oom_victim > because We are using SIGKILL for OOM and struct signal > naturally represent signal target. Yes, but if this process participates in the coredump, we should find the right thread, or mark mm or mm->core_state. In fact, I was never sure that oom-kill should kill the single process. Perhaps it should kill all tasks using the same ->mm instead. But this is another story. > 2) mm->nr_oom_killed_task > just avoid simple flag. instead counting number of tasks of > oom-killed. again, can't understand. > I think both avoid your explained problem. Am I missing something? I guess that I am missing something ;) Please clarify? > But, again, I have no objection to your patch. because I really hope to > fix coredump vs oom issue. Yes, I think this is important. And if we keep the PF_EXITING check in select_bad_process(), it should be fixed so that at least the coredump can't fool it. And the "p != current" is obviously not right too. I'll try to do something next week, the patches should be simple. 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>