On Thu 26-03-15 07:24:45, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:15:48PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> > > /*
> > > - * Acquire the oom lock. If that fails, somebody else is
> > > - * making progress for us.
> > > + * This allocating task can become the OOM victim itself at
> > > + * any point before acquiring the lock. In that case, exit
> > > + * quickly and don't block on the lock held by another task
> > > + * waiting for us to exit.
> > > */
> > > - if (!mutex_trylock(&oom_lock)) {
> > > - *did_some_progress = 1;
> > > - schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> > > - return NULL;
> > > + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) || mutex_lock_killable(&oom_lock)) {
> > > + alloc_flags |= ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS;
> > > + goto alloc;
> > > }
> >
> > When a thread group has 1000 threads and most of them are doing memory allocation
> > request, all of them will get fatal_signal_pending() == true when one of them are
> > chosen by OOM killer.
> > This code will allow most of them to access memory reserves, won't it?
>
> Ah, good point! Only TIF_MEMDIE should get reserve access, not just
> any dying thread. Thanks, I'll fix it in v2.
Do you plan to post this v2 here for review?
[...]
--
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>