From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34926B006A for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:29:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:29:46 +1100 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: OOM-Killed process don't invoke pagefault-oom Message-ID: <20100118072946.GA10052@laptop> References: <20100114191940.6749.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100114130257.GB8381@laptop> <20100115085146.6EC0.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100115085146.6EC0.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Jeff Dike , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-mm List-ID: On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 03:21:40PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I don't think this should be required, because the oom killer does not > > kill a new task if there is already one in memdie state. > > > > If you have any further tweaks to the heuristic (such as a fatal signal > > pending), then it should probably go in select_bad_process() or > > somewhere like that. > > I see, I misunderstood. very thanks. Well, it *might* be a good idea to check for fatal signal pending similar your patch. Because I think there could be large latency between the signal and the task moving to exit state if the process is waiting uninterruptible in the kernel for a while. But if you do it in select_bad_process() then it would work for all classes of oom kill. Thanks, Nick -- 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