From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:37:36 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [PATCH 11 of 11] not-wait-memdie Message-ID: <20080108073736.GD22800@v2.random> References: <504e981185254a12282d.1199326157@v2.random> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: David Rientjes Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton List-ID: On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 05:57:41PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > That's only possible with my proposal of adding > > unsigned long oom_kill_jiffies; > > to struct task_struct. We can't get away with a system-wide jiffies I already added it. > variable, nor can we get away with per-cgroup, per-cpuset, or > per-mempolicy variable. The only way to clear such a variable is in the > exit path (by checking test_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_MEMDIE) in do_exit()) and > fails miserably if there are simultaneous but zone-disjoint OOMs > occurring. I don't see much issues with zone-disjoints oom with my current patchset. The trouble is a new deadlock that I'm reproducing now, I submit you privately a preview of the memdie_jiffies, did you see any problem in my implementation? I guess I'll resubmit to linux-mm too. The new deadlock I run into after adding memdie_jiffies is likely unrelated to the memdie_jiffies. -- 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