From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:09:42 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch 5/5] oom: invoke OOM killer from pagefault handler Message-Id: <20061012150942.42e05898.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20061012151907.GB18463@wotan.suse.de> References: <20061012120102.29671.31163.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20061012120150.29671.48586.sendpatchset@linux.site> <452E5B4D.7000402@sw.ru> <20061012151907.GB18463@wotan.suse.de> 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: Kirill Korotaev , Linux Memory Management , Linux Kernel List-ID: On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:19:07 +0200 Nick Piggin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:12:13PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: > > Nick, > > > > AFAICS, 1 page allocation which is done in page fault handler > > can fail in the only case - OOM kills current, so if we failed > > we should have TIF_MEMDIE and just kill current. > > Selecting another process for killing if page fault fails means > > taking another victim with the one being already killed. > > > > Hi Kirill, > > I don't quite understand you. Kirill is claiming that the only occasion on which a pagefault handler would get an oom is when it killed itself in the oom handler. > If the page allocation fails in the > fault handler, we don't want to kill current if it is marked as > OOM_DISABLE or sysctl_panic_on_oom is set... imagine a critical > service in a failover system. > > It should be quite likely for another process to be kiled and > provide enough memory to keep the system running. Presuming you > have faith in the concept of the OOM killer ;) I'm a bit wobbly about this one. Some before-and-after testing results would help things along.. -- 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