From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] oom: use same_thread_group instead comparing ->mm
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:51:37 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100617101809.FB54.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100616122403.GA5304@redhat.com>
> On 06/16, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >
> > Now, oom are using "child->mm != p->mm" check to distinguish subthread.
>
> Heh. is it true??? I never undestood what oom_kill_process()->list_for_each_entry()
> is supposed to do.
I guessed. true history was gone long time ago ;)
ok, I'll remove dubious guess.
> > But It's incorrect. vfork() child also have the same ->mm.
>
> Yes.
>
> > This patch change to use same_thread_group() instead.
>
> I don't think we need same_thread_group(). Please note that any children must
> be from the different thread_group.
Agghh. I see.
ok, probably, I've got correct original author intention now.
To be honest, andrea's ancient patch is very hard to understand for me ;)
>
> So,
>
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ unsigned long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long uptime)
> > list_for_each_entry(c, &t->children, sibling) {
> > child = find_lock_task_mm(c);
> > if (child) {
> > - if (child->mm != p->mm)
> > + if (same_thread_group(p, child))
> > points += child->mm->total_vm/2 + 1;
> > task_unlock(child);
> > }
> > @@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ static int oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> > list_for_each_entry(child, &t->children, sibling) {
> > unsigned long child_points;
> >
> > - if (child->mm == p->mm)
> > + if (same_thread_group(p, child))
> > continue;
>
> In both cases same_thread_group() must be false.
>
> This means that the change in oom_badness() doesn't look right,
> "child->mm != p->mm" is the correct check to decide whether we should
> account child->mm.
>
> The change in oom_kill_process() merely removes this "continue".
> Could someone please explain what this code _should_ do?
I think you are right.
--
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:[~2010-06-17 1:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-16 11:29 [PATCH 1/9] oom: don't try to kill oom_unkillable child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:31 ` [PATCH 2/9] oom: rename badness() to oom_badness() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 14:46 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 21:40 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:32 ` [PATCH 3/9] oom: oom_kill_process() doesn't select kthread child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:02 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:32 ` [PATCH 4/9] oom: oom_kill_process() need to check p is unkillable KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:07 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 5/9] oom: make oom_unkillable_task() helper function KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:10 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 11:34 ` [PATCH 6/9] oom: use same_thread_group instead comparing ->mm KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 12:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2010-06-16 15:15 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:34 ` [PATCH 7/9] oom: unify CAP_SYS_RAWIO check into other superuser check KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:35 ` [PATCH 8/9] oom: cleanup has_intersects_mems_allowed() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:22 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 11:36 ` [PATCH 9/9] oom: give the dying task a higher priority KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:31 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 19:54 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 14:41 ` [PATCH 1/9] oom: don't try to kill oom_unkillable child Minchan Kim
2010-06-17 1:51 ` 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=20100617101809.FB54.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--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