From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9771A6B006A for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:21:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o0I8LMpv029173 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:21:23 +0900 Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B4072AEA8E for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:21:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B69F1EF0A4 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:21:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC07E38009 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:21:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F5AE38003 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:21:21 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: OOM-Killed process don't invoke pagefault-oom In-Reply-To: <20100118072946.GA10052@laptop> References: <20100115085146.6EC0.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100118072946.GA10052@laptop> Message-Id: <20100118172032.5F1C.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:21:21 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, 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. Thank you for good advise. I'll make next version so :) -- 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