On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:31:24PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 06-11-14 11:12:11, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:01:58PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Yes, OOM killer simply kicks the process sets TIF_MEMDIE and terminates. > > > That will release the read_lock, allow this to take the write lock and > > > check whether it the current has been killed without any races. > > > OOM killer doesn't wait for the killed task. The allocation is retried. > > > > > > Does this explain your concern? > > > > Draining oom killer then doesn't mean anything, no? OOM killer may > > have been disabled and drained but the killed tasks might wake up > > after the PM freezer considers them to be frozen, right? What am I > > missing? > > The mutual exclusion between OOM and the freezer will cause that the > victim will have TIF_MEMDIE already set when try_to_freeze_tasks even > starts. Then freezing_slow_path wouldn't allow the task to enter the > fridge so the wake up moment is not really that important. What if it was already in the freezer? -- tejun -- 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>