Oleg pointed out current PF_EXITING check is wrong. Because PF_EXITING
is per-thread flag, not per-process flag. He said,
Two threads, group-leader L and its sub-thread T. T dumps the code.
In this case both threads have ->mm != NULL, L has PF_EXITING.
The first problem is, select_bad_process() always return -1 in this
case (even if the caller is T, this doesn't matter).
The second problem is that we should add TIF_MEMDIE to T, not L.
I think we can remove this dubious PF_EXITING check. but as first step,
This patch add the protection of multi threaded issue.
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/oom_kill.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index b2ea2d8..4abc5c1 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned long *ppoints,
* the process of exiting and releasing its resources.
* Otherwise we could get an easy OOM deadlock.
*/
- if ((p->flags & PF_EXITING) && p->mm) {
+ if (thread_group_empty(p) && (p->flags & PF_EXITING) && p->mm) {
if (p != current)
return ERR_PTR(-1UL);
--
1.6.5.2
--
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>