David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> oom_scan_process_thread() checks for TIF_MEMDIE on p, not on p's threads.
> If one of p's threads has TIF_MEMDIE set and p does not, we actually want
> to set TIF_MEMDIE for p. That's the current behavior since it will lead
> to p->mm memory freeing. Your patch is excluding such processes entirely
> and selecting another process to kill unnecessarily.
>
I think p's threads are checked by oom_scan_process_thread() for TIF_MEMDIE
even if p does not have TIF_MEMDIE. What am I misunderstanding about what
for_each_process_thread(g, p) is doing?
#define for_each_process_thread(p, t) for_each_process(p) for_each_thread(p, t)
select_bad_process() {
for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
oom_scan_process_thread(oc, p, totalpages));
oom_badness(p);
}
}
--
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>