On Sat 29-07-17 13:31:44, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> @@ -806,6 +799,20 @@ static bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> + /*
> + * It is possible that current thread fails to try allocation from
> + * memory reserves if the OOM reaper set MMF_OOM_SKIP on this mm before
> + * current thread calls out_of_memory() in order to get TIF_MEMDIE.
> + * In that case, allow current thread to try TIF_MEMDIE allocation
> + * before start selecting next OOM victims.
> + */
> + if (ret && test_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags)) {
> + if (task == current && !task->oom_kill_free_check_raced)
> + task->oom_kill_free_check_raced = true;
> + else
> + ret = false;
> + }
> +
> return ret;
> }
I was going to argue that this will not work because we could mark a
former OOM victim again after it passed exit_oom_victim but this seems
impossible because task_will_free_mem checks task->mm and that will be
NULL by that time. This is still an ugly hack and it doesn't provide any
additional guarantee. Once we merge [1] then the oom victim wouldn't
need to get TIF_MEMDIE to access memory reserves.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170727090357.3205-2-mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx
--
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>
