Michal Hocko wrote: > OK, but the memory is allocated on behalf of the parent already, right? What does "the memory is allocated on behalf of the parent already" mean? The memory used for argv[]/envp[] may not yet be visible from mm_struct when the OOM killer is invoked. > And the patch doesn't prevent parent from being selected and the vfroked > child being killed along the way as sharing the mm with it. So what > exactly this patch changes for this test case? What am I missing? If the parent is OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN and vfork()ed child doing execve() with large argv[]/envp[] is not OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN, we should not hesitate to OOM-kill vfork()ed child even if the parent is not OOM-killable. vfork() set_oom_adj() exec() -- 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>