Re: [v10 3/6] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

[Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>]

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 01:17:14PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> 
> > > > @@ -828,6 +828,12 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim)
> > > >  	struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > >  	bool can_oom_reap = true;
> > > >  
> > > > +	if (is_global_init(victim) || (victim->flags & PF_KTHREAD) ||
> > > > +	    victim->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN) {
> > > > +		put_task_struct(victim);
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > >  	p = find_lock_task_mm(victim);
> > > >  	if (!p) {
> > > >  		put_task_struct(victim);
> > > 
> > > Is this necessary? The callers of this function use oom_badness() to
> > > find a victim, and that filters init, kthread, OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN.
> > 
> > It is. __oom_kill_process() is used to kill all processes belonging
> > to the selected memory cgroup, so we should perform these checks
> > to avoid killing unkillable processes.
> > 
> 
> That's only true after the next patch in the series which uses the 
> oom_kill_memcg_member() callback to kill processes for oom_group, correct?  
> Would it be possible to move this check to that patch so it's more 
> obvious?

Yup, I realized it when reviewing the next patch. Moving this hunk to
the next patch would probably make sense. Although, us reviewers have
been made aware of this now, so I don't feel strongly about it. Won't
make much of a difference once the patches are merged.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>