Re: [patch -mm v2] mm: introduce oom_adj_child

[David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>]

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

> 1. IIUC, the name is strange.
> 
> At job scheduler, which does this.
> 
> if (vfork() == 0) {
> 	/* do some job */
> 	execve(.....)
> }
> 
> Then, when oom_adj_child can be effective is after execve().
> IIUC, the _child_ means a process created by vfork().
> 

It's certainly a difficult thing to name and I don't claim that "child" is 
completely accurate since, as you said, vfork'd tasks are also children 
of the parent yet they share the same oom_adj value since it's an 
attribute of the shared mm.

If you have suggestions for a better name, I'd happily ack it.

> 2. More simple plan is like this, IIUC.
> 
>   fix oom-killer's select_bad_process() not to be in deadlock.
> 

Alternate ideas?

> rather than this new stupid interface.
> 

Well, thank you.  Regardless of whether you think it's stupid or not, it 
doesn't allow you to livelock the kernel in a very trivial way when the 
oom killer gets invoked prior to execve() and the parent is OOM_DISABLE.

--
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>