mm, oom: OOM sysrq should always kill a process
Subsystems (2)
PATCH v2 1/1 mm, oom: OOM sysrq should always kill a process
The OOM kill sysrq (alt+sysrq+F) should allow the user to kill the process with the highest OOM badness with a single execution.
However, at the moment, the OOM kill can bail out if an OOM notifier (e.g. the i915 one) says that it reclaimed a tiny amount of memory from somewhere. That's probably not what the user wants.
As documented in struct oom_control, order == -1 means the oom kill is required by sysrq. So check for that, and if it's true, don't bail out no matter what the OOM notifiers say.
--- mm/oom_kill.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
mm/oom_kill.c +1 -1
@@ -1057,7 +1057,7 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)if (!is_memcg_oom (oc)) {blocking_notifier_call_chain (&oom_notify_list,0 , &freed); -if (freed >0 ) +if (freed >0 && !is_sysrq_oom (oc))/* Got some memory back in the last second. */ return true; }
base-commit: c9e6606c7fe92b50a02ce51dda82586ebdf99b48
Signature · 1 line
2.34.1.448.ga2b2bfdf31-goog
Quoted 10 lines · Jann Horn
The OOM kill sysrq (alt+sysrq+F) should allow the user to kill the process with the highest OOM badness with a single execution.
However, at the moment, the OOM kill can bail out if an OOM notifier (e.g. the i915 one) says that it reclaimed a tiny amount of memory from somewhere. That's probably not what the user wants.
As documented in struct
oom_control, order == -1 means the oom kill is required by sysrq. So check for that, and if it's true, don't bail out no matter what the OOM notifiers say.
Er, sorry, I just noticed after sending this that the commit message doesn't make sense anymore... I'll send a new version in a sec.