On 06/28, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 27-06-16 22:40:17, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Ah, but this is clear, note the "Ignoring the obvious races" above. > > Can't we fix this race? I am a bit lost, but iirc we want this anyway > > to ensure that we do not set TIF_MEMDIE if ->mm == NULL ? > > This is not about a race it is about not reaching exit_oom_victim and > unblock the oom killer from selecting another victim. I understand. What I do not understand why we can't rely on MMF_OOM_REAPED if we ensure that TIF_MEMDIE can only be set if the victim did not call exit_oom_victim() yet. OK, please forget, I already got lost and right now I don't even have the uptodate -mm tree sources. > > Hmm. Although I am not sure I really understand the "may block for > > unbounded period ..." above. Do you mean khugepaged_exit? > > __mmput->exit_aio can wait for IO to complete and who knows what that > might depend on. Yes, but I was confused by "waiting for somebody else's memory allocation", I do not this this apllies to exit_aio. Nevermind, > Who knows how many others are lurking there. Yes, yes, I agree. Just I wrongly thought Tetsuo meant something particular. Oleg. -- 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>