On 06/30, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 29-06-16 22:01:08, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Btw, do we still need this list_for_each_entry(child, &t->children, sibling) > > > loop in oom_kill_process() ? > > > > Well, to be honest, I don't know. This is a heuristic we have been doing > > for a long time. I do not know how many times it really matters. It can > > even be harmful in loads where children are created in the same pace OOM > > killer is killing them. Not sure how likely is that though... > > Let me think whether we can do something about that. > > I'm using that behavior in order to test almost OOM situation. ;) Can you explain why do we want this behaviour? Except, again, sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task, see my reply to Michal. > By the way, are you going to fix use_mm() race? Currently, we don't wake up > OOM reaper if some kernel thread is holding a reference to that mm via > use_mm(). But currently we can hit Yes, and I already mention this race, and this is why I think we should not skip kthreads. > race. I think we need to make use_mm() fail after mark_oom_victim() is called. Perhaps this makes sense anyway later, but I still think we do not really care. I'll write another email... 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>