On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > At v2.6.36-rc1, oom-killer doesn't work at all because YOU BROKE. > And I was working on fixing it. > > 2010-08-19 > http://marc.info/?t=128223176900001&r=1&w=2 This existed before my oom killer rewrite, it was only noticed because the rewrite enabled oom_dump_tasks by default. > http://marc.info/?t=128221532700003&r=1&w=2 Yes, tasklist_lock was dropped in a mismerge of my patches when posting them. Thanks for finding it and posting a patch, I appreciate it. > http://marc.info/?t=128221532500008&r=1&w=2 > Yes, if a task was racing between oom_kill_process() and oom_kill_task() and all threads had dropped its mm between calls then there was a NULL pointer dereference, thanks for fixing that as well. > However, You submitted new crap before the fixing. > > 2010-08-15 > http://marc.info/?t=128184669600001&r=1&w=2 > This isn't "crap", this is a necessary bit to ensure that tasks that share an ->mm with a task immune from kill aren't killed themselves since we can't free the memory. We came to the consensus that it would be better to count the tasks that are OOM_DISABLE in the mm_struct to avoid the O(2*n) tasklist scan. > If you tested mainline a bit, you could find the problem quickly. > You should have fixed mainline kernel at first. > Thanks for finding a couple fixes during the 2.6.36-rc1 when the rewrite was first merged, it's much appreciated! -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>