On Sun 31-07-16 11:35:30, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Sat 30-07-16 17:20:30, Tetsuo Handa wrote: [...] > > But safer way is to get rid of TIF_MEMDIE's triple meanings. The first > > one which prevents the OOM killer from selecting next OOM victim was > > removed by replacing TIF_MEMDIE test in oom_scan_process_thread() with > > tsk_is_oom_victim(). The second one which allows the OOM victims to > > deplete 100% of memory reserves wants some changes in order not to > > block memory allocations by non OOM victims (e.g. GFP_ATOMIC allocations > > by interrupt handlers, GFP_NOIO / GFP_NOFS allocations by subsystems > > which are needed for making forward progress of threads in do_exit()) > > by consuming too much of memory reserves. The third one which blocks > > oom_killer_disable() can be removed by replacing TIF_MEMDIE test in > > exit_oom_victim() with PFA_OOM_WAITING test like below patch. > > I plan to remove TIF_MEMDIE dependency for this as well but I would like > to finish this pile first. We actually do not need any flag for that. We > just need to detect last exiting thread and tsk_is_oom_victim. I have > some preliminary code for that. That being said. If you _really_ consider this patch to be controversial I can drop it and handle it with other patches which should handle also TIF_MEMDIE removal. The rest of the series doesn't really depend on it in any way. I just though this would be easy enough to carry it with this pile already. I do not insist on it. -- 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>