>On 2018/10/08 10:19, Yong-Taek Lee wrote:
>> @@ -1056,6 +1056,7 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
>> struct mm_struct *mm = NULL;
>> struct task_struct *task;
>> int err = 0;
>> + int mm_users = 0;
>>
>> task = get_proc_task(file_inode(file));
>> if (!task)
>> @@ -1092,7 +1093,8 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
>> struct task_struct *p = find_lock_task_mm(task);
>>
>> if (p) {
>> - if (atomic_read(&p->mm->mm_users) > 1) {
>> + mm_users = atomic_read(&p->mm->mm_users);
>> + if ((mm_users > 1) && (mm_users != get_nr_threads(p))) {
>
> How can this work (even before this patch)? When clone(CLONE_VM without CLONE_THREAD/CLONE_SIGHAND)
> is requested, copy_process() calls copy_signal() in order to copy sig->oom_score_adj and
> sig->oom_score_adj_min before calling copy_mm() in order to increment mm->mm_users, doesn't it?
> Then, we will get two different "struct signal_struct" with different oom_score_adj/oom_score_adj_min
> but one "struct mm_struct" shared by two thread groups.
>
Are you talking about race between __set_oom_adj and copy_process?
If so, i agree with your opinion. It can not set oom_score_adj properly for copied process if __set_oom_adj
check mm_users before copy_process calls copy_mm after copy_signal. Please correct me if i misunderstood anything.
>> mm = p->mm;
>> atomic_inc(&mm->mm_count);
>> }
