On 08/12, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 12-08-16 15:21:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Whats really interesting is that I still fail to understand do we really > > need this hack, iiuc you are not sure too, and Michael didn't bother to > > explain why a bogus zero from anon memory is worse than other problems > > caused by SIGKKILL from oom-kill.c. > > Yes, I admit that I am not familiar with the vhost memory usage model so > I can only speculate. But the mere fact that the mm is bound to a device > fd Yes, and I already tried to complain. This doesn't look right in any case. > which can be passed over to a different process makes me worried. > This means that the mm is basically isolated from the original process > until the last fd is closed which is under control of the process which > holds it. The mm can still be access during that time from the vhost > worker. And I guess this is exactly where the problem lies. Agreed. 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>