Was: oom: prevent unnecessary oom kills or kernel panics
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest1 patch 1 replyIn review
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
| # | Subject and files | Size | Replies | Applied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/1 | oom_kill_task: mark every thread as TIF_MEMDIEmm/ | +13 | 1 reply | |
| 1/1 | select_bad_process: improve the PF_EXITING checkmm/ | +16 | 0 replies |
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [PATCH 0/1] Was: oom: prevent unnecessary oom kills or kernel panics
Quoted 9 lines · Oleg Nesterov
Quoted 7 lines · David Rientjes
Quoted 4 lines · Oleg Nesterov
Quoted 3 lines
Using
for_each_process()does not consider threads that have failed to exit after the oom killed parent and, thus, we select another innocent task to kill when we're really just waiting for those threads to exit
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
How so?
select_bad_process()checksTIF_MEMDIEand returnsERR_PTR()if it is set.
TIF_MEMDIEis quite obviously a per-thread flagYes, and this is why I think it should be replaced.
But this is not simple. I'd suggest this patch as the first step.
It is not tested. I do not pretend I really understand oom-killer in all details (although oom_kill.c itself is quite trivial).
The patch assumes that
oom-prevent-unnecessary-oom-kills-or-kernel-panics.patch oom-skip-zombies-when-iterating-tasklist.patch
are dropped.
I think, this patch __might__ address the problems described in the changelog, but of course I am not sure.
I am relying on your and Kosaki's review, if you disagree with this change I won't argue.
But the current usage of TIF_MEMDIE can't be right.
Oleg.
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>