RFC 2.6.19-rc1: oom killer fixes
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 RFC Latest5 patches 9 repliesIn review
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
| # | Subject and files | Size | Replies | Applied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/5 | oom: don't kill unkillable children or siblingsmm/ | +11 | 2 replies | |
| 2/5 | oom: cleanup messagesmm/ | +13 | 0 replies | |
| 3/5 | oom: less memdiemm/ | +3 | 2 replies | |
| 4/5 | mm: incorrect VM_FAULT_OOM returns from driversdrivers/ sound/ sound/ +1 more | +12 | 0 replies | |
| 5/5 | oom: invoke OOM killer from pagefault handlerarch/ arch/ arch/ +5 more | +96 | 5 replies |
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [rfc][patch 0/5] 2.6.19-rc1: oom killer fixes
I've been prompted to take another look through the OOM killer because it turns out it is killing tasks that have had their oom_adj set to -17 (which is supposed to make them unkillable).
So there are a number of problems, firstly, the child and sibling thread killing routines do not account for -17 children/siblings.
Secondly, most architecture specific pagefault handlers do a direct kill of the current process if it takes a VM_FAULT_OOM. This is a pretty rare thing to happen, because there isn't a lot of higher order allocations happening, but it is not impossible. I think we can just call into the OOM killer here, and return to userspace... but I'd like comments about this.
Thanks,
Nick
--
SuSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>