On Wed 08-06-16 20:18:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > The victim selection code can be reduced because it is basically > > shared between the two, only the iterator differs. But I guess that > > can be eliminated by a simple helper. > > Thank you for CC: me. I like this clean up. > > > --- > > include/linux/oom.h | 5 +++++ > > mm/memcontrol.c | 47 ++++++----------------------------------- > > mm/oom_kill.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- > > 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-) > > I think we can apply your version with below changes folded into your version. > (I think totalpages argument can be passed via oom_control as well. Also, according to > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201602192336.EJF90671.HMFLFSVOFJOtOQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx , > we can safely replace oc->memcg in oom_badness() in oom_evaluate_task() with NULL. ) yes oom_badness can never see a task from outside of the memcg hierarchy. [...] > +static enum oom_scan_t oom_scan_process_thread(struct oom_control *oc, > + struct task_struct *task) > { > if (oom_unkillable_task(task, NULL, oc->nodemask)) > return OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE; > @@ -307,6 +314,9 @@ int oom_evaluate_task(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *p, unsigned lo > case OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE: > return 1; > case OOM_SCAN_ABORT: > + if (oc->chosen) > + put_task_struct(oc->chosen); > + oc->chosen = (void *) -1UL; true including the memcg fixup. > return 0; > case OOM_SCAN_OK: > break; Thanks! I've updated the patch locally but I will wait for Vladimir what he thinks about this wrt. the original approach. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>