On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 01:21:42PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > I found the below patch lying around but I didn't queue it properly. > Is it legit? Yeah. Michal suggested this should be its own patch, which I agree with. The subject would then be: Subject: mm: oom_kill: don't ignore oom score on exiting tasks > From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: oom-clear-tif_memdie-after-oom_reaper-managed-to-unmap-the-address-space-fix > > When the OOM killer scans tasks and encounters a PF_EXITING one, it > force-selects that one regardless of the score. Is there a possibility > that the task might hang after it has set PF_EXITING? In that case the > OOM killer should be able to move on to the next task. > > Frankly, I don't even know why we check for exiting tasks in the OOM > killer. We've tried direct reclaim at least 15 times by the time we > decide the system is OOM, there was plenty of time to exit and free > memory; and a task might exit voluntarily right after we issue a kill. > This is testing pure noise. Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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>