From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] oom: use send_sig() instead force_sig()
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:24:52 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100613180912.617B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100608184144.GA5914@redhat.com>
> On 06/08, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >
> > Oleg pointed out oom_kill.c has force_sig() abuse. force_sig() mean
> > ignore signal mask. but SIGKILL itself is not maskable.
>
> Yes. And we have other reasons to avoid force_sig(). It should be used
> only for synchronous signals.
>
> But,
>
> > @@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ static int __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > p->rt.time_slice = HZ;
> > set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
> >
> > - force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
> > + send_sig(SIGKILL, p, 1);
>
> This is not right, we need send_sig(SIGKILL, p, 0). Better yet,
> send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO). I think send_sig() should
> die.
>
> The reason is that si_fromuser() must be true, otherwise we can't kill
> the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE (sub-namespace inits) tasks.
Thanks. I am not signal expert.
To be honest, current special siginfo arguments have a bit unclear meanings
to me ;)
current definition (following) doesn't teach anything.
sched.h
=====================
/* These can be the second arg to send_sig_info/send_group_sig_info. */
#define SEND_SIG_NOINFO ((struct siginfo *) 0)
#define SEND_SIG_PRIV ((struct siginfo *) 1)
#define SEND_SIG_FORCED ((struct siginfo *) 2)
If anyone write exact meanings, I'm really really glad.
> Oh. This reminds me, we really need the trivial (but annoying) cleanups
> here. The usage of SEND_SIG_ constants is messy, and they should be
> renamed at least.
>
> And in fact, we need the new one which acts like SEND_SIG_FORCED but
> si_fromuser(). We do not want to allocate the memory when the caller
> is oom_kill or zap_pid_ns_processes().
>
> OK. I'll send the simple patch which adds the new helper with the
> comment. send_sigkill() or kernel_kill_task(), or do you see a
> better name?
Very thanks. both name are pretty good to me.
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-13 11:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-08 11:53 [0/10] 3rd pile of OOM patch series KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-08 11:54 ` [PATCH 01/10] oom: don't try to kill oom_unkillable child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-08 19:10 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-08 11:55 ` [PATCH 02/10] oom: remove verbose argument from __oom_kill_process() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-08 19:09 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-08 11:56 ` [PATCH 03/10] oom: rename badness() to oom_badness() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-08 19:09 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-08 11:57 ` [PATCH 04/10] oom: move sysctl declarations to oom.h KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-08 11:58 ` [PATCH 05/10] oom: enable oom tasklist dump by default KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-08 11:59 ` [PATCH 06/10] oom: cleanup has_intersects_mems_allowed() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-08 19:07 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-08 11:59 ` [PATCH 07/10] oom: kill useless debug print KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-08 19:01 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-08 12:01 ` [PATCH 08/10] oom: use send_sig() instead force_sig() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-08 18:41 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-10 0:59 ` [PATCH 0/1] signals: introduce send_sigkill() helper Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-10 1:00 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-11 0:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-06-13 11:24 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-13 15:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-16 10:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-13 11:24 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2010-06-08 12:02 ` [PATCH 09/10] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-08 19:05 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-08 12:04 ` [PATCH 10/10] oom: select task from tasklist for mempolicy ooms KOSAKI Motohiro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100613180912.617B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=lclaudio@uudg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox