Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > > index 544d47e5cbbd..86a48affb938 100644 > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > > @@ -1896,7 +1896,7 @@ static int try_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask, > > * bypass the last charges so that they can exit quickly and > > * free their memory. > > */ > > - if (unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) || > > + if (unlikely(tsk_is_oom_victim(current) || > > fatal_signal_pending(current) || > > current->flags & PF_EXITING)) > > goto force; > > Did we check http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160909140508.GO4844@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ? > > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > > index c9f3569a76c7..65cc2f9aaa05 100644 > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > > @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm) > > * [...] > > * out_of_memory > > * select_bad_process > > - * # no TIF_MEMDIE task selects new victim > > + * # no TIF_MEMDIE, selects new victim > > * unmap_page_range # frees some memory > > */ > > mutex_lock(&oom_lock); > > This comment is wrong. No MMF_OOM_SKIP mm selects new victim. > Oops. "MMF_OOM_SKIP mm selects new victim." according to http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201706271952.FEB21375.SFJFHOQLOtVOMF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx . -- 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>
