> > 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. Indeed. But as long as oom_kill acts on process granularity, I don't think we should have it set an mm-granularity flag. That calculus changes if a core dump is actually in progress, since that is already definitely going to kill all tasks using that mm. When no dump is in progress, it feels wrong to leave any state change in mm, since the other mm-sharers were not affected. Thanks, Roland -- 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>