On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:36:15 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
>
> This is based on the idea from Mel Gorman discussed during LSFMM 2015 and
> independently brought up by Oleg Nesterov.
>
> The OOM killer currently allows to kill only a single task in a good
> hope that the task will terminate in a reasonable time and frees up its
> memory. Such a task (oom victim) will get an access to memory reserves
> via mark_oom_victim to allow a forward progress should there be a need
> for additional memory during exit path.
>
> ...
>
> +static void oom_reap_vmas(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + int attempts = 0;
> +
> + while (attempts++ < 10 && !__oom_reap_vmas(mm))
> + schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
schedule_timeout() in state TASK_RUNNING doesn't do anything. Use
msleep() or msleep_interruptible(). I can't decide which is more
appropriate - it only affects the load average display.
Which prompts the obvious question: as the no-operativeness of this
call wasn't noticed in testing, why do we have it there...
I guess it means that the __oom_reap_vmas() success rate is nice and
high ;)
--
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>