David Rientjes wrote: > > @@ -171,7 +195,7 @@ unsigned long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > > if (oom_unkillable_task(p, memcg, nodemask)) > > return 0; > > > > - p = find_lock_task_mm(p); > > + p = find_lock_non_victim_task_mm(p); > > if (!p) > > return 0; > > > > I understand how this may make your test case pass, but I simply don't > understand how this could possibly be the correct thing to do. This would > cause oom_badness() to return 0 for any process where a thread has > TIF_MEMDIE set. If the oom killer is called from the page allocator, > kills a thread, and it is recalled before that thread may exit, then this > will panic the system if there are no other eligible processes to kill. > Why? oom_badness() is called after oom_scan_process_thread() returned OOM_SCAN_OK. oom_scan_process_thread() returns OOM_SCAN_ABORT if a thread has TIF_MEMDIE set. If the TIF_MEMDIE thread already exited, find_lock_non_victim_task_mm() acts like find_lock_task_mm(). Otherwise, oom_scan_process_thread() acts like a blocker. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>