* OOM may be being too nice to killed processes
@ 2001-11-04 20:36 Adam Pennington
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Adam Pennington @ 2001-11-04 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: riel
I may be misunderstanding this, but looking at this portion of code from
the oom task killer... Isn't it dangerous to give a process PF_MEMALLOC and
then only pass it a SIGTERM? My take is that the high priority bump up
should only happen for the force_sig(SIGKILL,p).
/*
* We give our sacrificial lamb high priority and access to
* all the memory it needs. That way it should be able to
* exit() and clear out its resources quickly...
*/
p->counter = 5 * HZ;
p->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC;
/* This process has hardware access, be more careful. */
if (cap_t(p->cap_effective) & CAP_TO_MASK(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) {
force_sig(SIGTERM, p);
} else {
force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
}
Adam Pennington
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2001-11-04 20:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-11-04 20:36 OOM may be being too nice to killed processes Adam Pennington
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.