On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:28:37PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Now, we have the same task check in two places. Unify it.
>
> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/oom_kill.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index dc8589e..a4a5439 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -101,6 +101,26 @@ static struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(struct task_struct *p)
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +/* return true if the task is not adequate as candidate victim task. */
> +static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> + const nodemask_t *nodemask)
> +{
> + if (is_global_init(p))
> + return true;
> + if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
> + return true;
> +
> + /* When mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() and p is not member of the group */
> + if (mem && !task_in_mem_cgroup(p, mem))
> + return true;
> +
> + /* p may not have freeable memory in nodemask */
> + if (!has_intersects_mems_allowed(p, nodemask))
> + return true;
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
I returend this patch as review 7/11.
Why didn't you check p->signal->oom_adj == OOM_DISABLE in here?
I don't figure out code after your patches are applied totally.
But I think it would be check it in this function as function's name says.
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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>