From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 59ADF6B01B2 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o61074Ca014282 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:07:05 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A786745DE6E for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:07:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A3145DE6F for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:07:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D7C1DB8037 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:07:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF0D1DB803A for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:07:03 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] oom: make oom_unkillable_task() helper function In-Reply-To: <20100630141944.GE15644@barrios-desktop> References: <20100630182752.AA4E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100630141944.GE15644@barrios-desktop> Message-Id: <20100701085648.DA19.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:07:02 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Minchan Kim Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, 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. For preserve select_bad_process() semantics. It have for_each_process(p) { if (oom_unkillable_task(p, mem, nodemask)) continue; if (thread_group_empty(p) && (p->flags & PF_EXITING) && p->mm) { if (p != current) return ERR_PTR(-1UL); chosen = p; *ppoints = ULONG_MAX; } if (oom_adj == OOM_DISABLE) continue; That said, Current OOM-Killer intend to kill PF_EXITING process even if it have OOM_DISABLE. (practically, it's not kill. it only affect to give allocation bonus to PF_EXITING process) My trivial fixes series don't intend to make large semantics change. -- 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