From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B034F6B0071 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pvg11 with SMTP id 11so423100pvg.14 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:19:44 +0900 From: Minchan Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] oom: make oom_unkillable_task() helper function Message-ID: <20100630141944.GE15644@barrios-desktop> References: <20100630172430.AA42.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100630182752.AA4E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100630182752.AA4E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:28:37PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Now, we have the same task check in two places. Unify it. > > Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro > --- > mm/oom_kill.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > 1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > index dc8589e..a4a5439 100644 > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > @@ -101,6 +101,26 @@ static struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(struct task_struct *p) > return NULL; > } > > +/* return true if the task is not adequate as candidate victim task. */ > +static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem, > + const nodemask_t *nodemask) > +{ > + if (is_global_init(p)) > + return true; > + if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) > + return true; > + > + /* When mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() and p is not member of the group */ > + if (mem && !task_in_mem_cgroup(p, mem)) > + return true; > + > + /* p may not have freeable memory in nodemask */ > + if (!has_intersects_mems_allowed(p, nodemask)) > + return true; > + > + return false; > +} > + I returend this patch as review 7/11. Why didn't you check p->signal->oom_adj == OOM_DISABLE in here? I don't figure out code after your patches are applied totally. But I think it would be check it in this function as function's name says. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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