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 ESMTP id 304248D0039 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 21:01:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9863E3EE0BB for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:01:40 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB2045DE59 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:01:40 +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 6529145DE56 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:01:40 +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 56CFD1DB804A for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:01:40 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.134]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223F71DB8047 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:01:40 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [patch] oom: prevent unnecessary oom kills or kernel panics In-Reply-To: References: <20110306201408.6CC6.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-Id: <20110308105825.7EA5.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:01:39 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Oleg Nesterov , Hugh Dickins , linux-mm@kvack.org > On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > There is no deadlock being introduced by this patch; if you have an > > > example of one, then please show it. The problem is not just overkill but > > > rather panicking the machine when no other eligible processes exist. We > > > have seen this in production quite a few times and we'd like to see this > > > patch merged to avoid our machines panicking because the oom killer, by > > > your patch, isn't considering threads that are eligible in the exit path > > > once their parent has been killed and has exited itself yet memory freeing > > > isn't possible yet because the threads still pin the ->mm. > > > > No. While you don't understand current code, I'll not taking yours. > > > > I take this as you declining to show your example of a deadlock introduced > by this patch as requested. There is no such deadlock. The patch is > reintroducing the behavior of the oom killer that existed for years before > you broke it and caused many of ours machines to panic as a result. > > Thanks for your review. How do you proof no deadlock? No, you can't. Don't pray to work as you hope. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org