Re: [patch] oom: prevent unnecessary oom kills or kernel panics

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> 
> > > There is no deadlock being introduced by this patch; if you have an 
> > > example of one, then please show it.  The problem is not just overkill but 
> > > rather panicking the machine when no other eligible processes exist.  We 
> > > have seen this in production quite a few times and we'd like to see this 
> > > patch merged to avoid our machines panicking because the oom killer, by 
> > > your patch, isn't considering threads that are eligible in the exit path 
> > > once their parent has been killed and has exited itself yet memory freeing 
> > > isn't possible yet because the threads still pin the ->mm.
> > 
> > No. While you don't understand current code, I'll not taking yours.
> > 
> 
> I take this as you declining to show your example of a deadlock introduced 
> by this patch as requested.  There is no such deadlock.  The patch is 
> reintroducing the behavior of the oom killer that existed for years before 
> you broke it and caused many of ours machines to panic as a result.
> 
> Thanks for your review.

How do you proof no deadlock? No, you can't. Don't pray to work as you hope.


--
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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]