On Fri, 10 Jul 2015, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand your point.
> >
> > There are two oom killer panics: when panic_on_oom is enabled and when the
> > oom killer can't find an eligible process.
> >
> > The change to the panic_on_oom panic is dealt with in check_panic_on_oom()
> > and the no eligible process panic is dealt with here.
> >
> > If the sysctl is disabled, and there are no eligible processes to kill,
> > the change in behavior here is that we don't panic when triggered from
> > sysrq. That's the change in the hunk above.
> >
> When no eligible processes is selected to kill, we are sure that we skip one
> panic in check_panic_on_oom(), and we have no clear reason to panic again.
>
> But we can simply answer the caller that there is no page, and let her
> decide what to do.
>
> So I prefer to fold the two panic into one.
>
> Hillf
> > > > - if (p != (void *)-1UL) {
> > > > + if (p && p != (void *)-1UL) {
> > > > oom_kill_process(oc, p, points, totalpages, NULL,
> > > > "Out of memory");
> > > > killed = 1;
>
I'm still not sure I understand your point, unfortunately. The new check:
if (!p && oc->order != -1) {
dump_header(oc, NULL, NULL);
panic("Out of memory and no killable processes...\n");
}
ensures we never panic when called from sysrq. This is done because
userspace can easily race when there is a single eligible process to kill
that exits or is otherwise killed and the sysrq+f ends up panicking the
machine unexpectedly.
--
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>