From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261411AbTJNWVx (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:21:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261239AbTJNWVx (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:21:53 -0400 Received: from bi01p1.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.142]:46318 "EHLO DYN320019.beaverton.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261411AbTJNWVw (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:21:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:17:59 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: OK to set PF_MEMDIE on cleanup tasks? Message-ID: <20031014151759.GA2188@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@us.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello! We have tasks that actively return memory to the system, which we would like to exempt from the OOM killer, as killing such tasks under low-memory conditions would indeed be counterproductive. It looks like the "official" way to do this is to catch/ignore signal 15, which results in PF_MEMDIE being set (in the 2.6 kernel), thus preventing the OOM killer from killing the task again. I don't see where PF_MEMDIE is cleared, though there are a number of subtle ways one might do this that I would have missed. So... Is it considered legit to simply set PF_MEMDIE when creating the cleanup task? Or is there some reason that one should deal with signal 15? All enlightenment much appreciated! Thanx, Paul