From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:03:50 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] oom: less memdie Message-Id: <20061012150350.00f19d2a.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20061012120129.29671.3288.sendpatchset@linux.site> References: <20061012120102.29671.31163.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20061012120129.29671.3288.sendpatchset@linux.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Linux Memory Management , Linux Kernel List-ID: On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:10:01 +0200 (CEST) Nick Piggin wrote: > Don't cause all threads in all other thread groups to gain TIF_MEMDIE > otherwise we'll get a thundering herd eating out memory reserve. This > may not be the optimal scheme, but it fits our policy of allowing just > one TIF_MEMDIE in the system at once. > > Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin > > Index: linux-2.6/mm/oom_kill.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/oom_kill.c > +++ linux-2.6/mm/oom_kill.c > @@ -322,11 +322,12 @@ static int oom_kill_task(struct task_str > > /* > * kill all processes that share the ->mm (i.e. all threads), > - * but are in a different thread group. > + * but are in a different thread group. Don't let them have access > + * to memory reserves though, otherwise we might deplete all memory. > */ > do_each_thread(g, q) { > if (q->mm == mm && q->tgid != p->tgid) > - __oom_kill_task(q, 1); > + force_sig(SIGKILL, p); > } while_each_thread(g, q); > Curious. How much testing did you do of this stuff? I assume there were some observed problems. What were they, and what was the observed effect of these changes? Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org