On Tue 19-07-16 06:30:42, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > I really do not think that this unlikely case really has to be handled > > now. We are very likely going to move to a different model of oom victim > > detection soon. So let's do not add new hacks. exit_oom_victim from > > oom_kill_process just looks like sand in eyes. > > Then, please revert "mm, oom: hide mm which is shared with kthread or global init" > ( http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1466426628-15074-11-git-send-email-mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx ). > I don't like that patch because it is doing pointless find_lock_task_mm() test > and is telling a lie because it does not guarantee that we won't hit OOM livelock. The above patch doesn't make the situation worse wrt livelock. I consider it an improvement. It adds find_lock_task_mm into oom_scan_process_thread but that can hardly be worse than just the task->signal->oom_victims check because we can catch MMF_OOM_REAPED. If we are mm loss, which is a less likely case, then we behave the same as with the previous implementation. So I do not really see a reason to revert that patch for now. -- 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>