On 2019/01/07 23:38, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Historically we have called mark_oom_victim only to the main task
> selected as the oom victim because oom victims have access to memory
> reserves and granting the access to all killed tasks could deplete
> memory reserves very quickly and cause even larger problems.
>
> Since only a partial access to memory reserves is allowed there is no
> longer this risk and so all tasks killed along with the oom victim
> can be considered as well.
>
> The primary motivation for that is that process groups which do not
> shared signals would behave more like standard thread groups wrt oom
> handling (aka tsk_is_oom_victim will work the same way for them).
>
> - Use find_lock_task_mm to stabilize mm as suggested by Tetsuo
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/oom_kill.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index f0e8cd9edb1a..0246c7a4e44e 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -892,6 +892,7 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim)
> */
> rcu_read_lock();
> for_each_process(p) {
> + struct task_struct *t;
> if (!process_shares_mm(p, mm))
> continue;
> if (same_thread_group(p, victim))
> @@ -911,6 +912,11 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim)
> if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> continue;
> do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_PRIV, p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> + t = find_lock_task_mm(p);
> + if (!t)
> + continue;
> + mark_oom_victim(t);
> + task_unlock(t);
Thank you for updating this patch. This patch is correct from the point of
view of avoiding TIF_MEMDIE race. But if I recall correctly, the reason we
did not do this is to avoid depleting memory reserves. And we still grant
full access to memory reserves for CONFIG_MMU=n case. Shouldn't the changelog
mention CONFIG_MMU=n case?
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
>
