On 09/22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
> > > if (likely(!fatal_signal_pending(p)))
> > > continue;
> > > task_lock(p);
> > > mm = p->mm;
> > > if (mm && mm->mmap && !mm->mmap_zapped && down_read_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)) {
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > We do not want mm->mmap_zapped, it can't work. We need mm->needs_zap
> > set by oom_kill_process() and cleared after zap_page_range().
> >
> > Because otherwise we can not handle CLONE_VM correctly. Suppose that
> > an innocent process P does vfork() and the child is killed but not
> > exited yet. mm_zapper() can find the child, do zap_page_range(), and
> > surprise its alive parent P which uses the same ->mm.
>
> kill(P's-child, SIGKILL) does not kill P sharing the same ->mm.
> Thus, mm_zapper() can be used for only OOM-kill case
Yes, and only if we know for sure that all tasks which can use
this ->mm were killed.
> and
> test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE) should be used than
> fatal_signal_pending(p).
No. For example, just look at mark_oom_victim() at the start of
out_of_memory().
> > Tetsuo, can't we do something simple which "obviously can't hurt at
> > least" and then discuss the potential improvements?
>
> No problem. I can wait for your version.
All I wanted to say is that this all is a bit more complicated than it
looks at first glance.
Oleg.
--
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>