On 07/04, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 07/03, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > > > If kthread_run() in oom_init() fails due to reasons other than OOM > > > (e.g. no free pid is available), userspace processes won't be able to > > > start as well. > > > > Why? > > > > The kernel will boot with or without your change, but > > > > > Therefore, trying to continue with error message is > > > also pointless. > > > > Can't understand... > > > > I think this warning makes sense. And since you removed the oom_reaper_the > > check in wake_oom_reaper(), the kernel will leak every task_struct passed > > to wake_oom_reaper() ? > > We are trying to prove that OOM livelock is impossible for CONFIG_MMU=y > kernels (as long as OOM killer is invoked) because the OOM reaper always > gives feedback to the OOM killer, right? Then, preserving code which > continues without OOM reaper no longer makes sense. > > In the past discussion, I suggested Michal to use BUG_ON() or panic() > ( http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20151127123525.GG2493@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ). At that > time, we chose continue with pr_err(). If you think that kthread_run() > failure in oom_init() will ever happen, I can change my patch to call > BUG_ON() or panic(). I don't like continuing without OOM reaper. And probably this makes sense, but > Anyway, [PATCH 8/8] in this series removes get_task_struct(). > Thus, the kernel won't leak every task_struct after all. which I can't read yet. I am still trying to clone linux-net, currently my internet connection is very slow. Anyway, this means that this 1/1 patch depends on 8/8, but 0/8 says [PATCH 1/8] can be sent to current linux.git as a clean up. IOW, this patch doesn't look correct without other changes? 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>