From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>
Cc: oleg@redhat.com, menage@google.com, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi,
nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, hugh@veritas.com, matthew@wil.cx,
rientjes@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + make-get_user_pages-interruptible.patch added to -mm tree
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:09:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081201150947.85e25789.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <604427e00812011500j48ae17d8w4f6f47eba7493af8@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:00:14 -0800
Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Ying Han wrote:
> >>
> >> -static int sigkill_pending(struct task_struct *tsk)
> >> +int sigkill_pending(struct task_struct *tsk)
> >> {
> >> return sigismember(&tsk->pending.signal, SIGKILL) ||
> >> sigismember(&tsk->signal->shared_pending.signal, SIGKILL);
> >> diff -puN mm/memory.c~make-get_user_pages-interruptible mm/memory.c
> >> --- a/mm/memory.c~make-get_user_pages-interruptible
> >> +++ a/mm/memory.c
> >> @@ -1219,12 +1219,12 @@ int __get_user_pages(struct task_struct
> >> struct page *page;
> >>
> >> /*
> >> - * If tsk is ooming, cut off its access to large memory
> >> - * allocations. It has a pending SIGKILL, but it can't
> >> - * be processed until returning to user space.
> >> + * If we have a pending SIGKILL, don't keep
> >> + * allocating memory.
> >> */
> >> - if (unlikely(test_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_MEMDIE)))
> >> - return i ? i : -ENOMEM;
> >> + if (unlikely(sigkill_pending(current) ||
> >> + sigkill_pending(tsk)))
> >
> > Please do not export/use sigkill_pending(). It is "private" for ptrace_stop()
> > (and actually should die imho).
> >
> > We have fatal_signal_pending() for that.
> >
> > Oleg.
> >
(top-posting repaired..)
> Thanks Oleg, i looked at the code again and this is a reasonable
> change. I will make the change on the patch.
> Andrew,
> should i make a patch based on current change or make the same
> patch as [V6]?
I don't mind either way. I guess a fresh new patch would simplify
review for everyone.
Note that fatal_signal_pending() is not an exact replacement for
sigkill_pending() - fatal_signal_pending() doesn't test the shared
pending signals.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-01 23:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-27 20:04 + make-get_user_pages-interruptible.patch added to -mm tree Oleg Nesterov
2008-12-01 23:00 ` Ying Han
2008-12-01 23:09 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2008-12-01 23:17 ` Ying Han
2008-12-02 13:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-11-25 23:44 akpm
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081201150947.85e25789.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=yinghan@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.