From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A7D086B01BF for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:31:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:31:13 +0800 From: anfei Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom killer: break from infinite loop Message-ID: <20100329113113.GA11838@desktop> References: <1269447905-5939-1-git-send-email-anfei.zhou@gmail.com> <20100326150805.f5853d1c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100326223356.GA20833@redhat.com> <20100328145528.GA14622@desktop> <20100328162821.GA16765@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100328162821.GA16765@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Andrew Morton , rientjes@google.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 06:28:21PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 03/28, anfei wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:33:56PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > Off-topic, but we shouldn't use force_sig(), SIGKILL doesn't > > > need "force" semantics. > > > > > This may need a dedicated patch, there are some other places to > > force_sig(SIGKILL, ...) too. > > Yes, yes, sure. > > > > I'd wish I could understand the changelog ;) > > > > > Assume thread A and B are in the same group. If A runs into the oom, > > and selects B as the victim, B won't exit because at least in exit_mm(), > > it can not get the mm->mmap_sem semaphore which A has already got. > > I see. But still I can't understand. To me, the problem is not that > B can't exit, the problem is that A doesn't know it should exit. All If B can exit, its memory will be freed, and A will be able to allocate the memory, so A won't loop here. Regards, Anfei. > threads should exit and free ->mm. Even if B could exit, this is not > enough. And, to some extent, it doesn't matter if it holds mmap_sem > or not. > > Don't get me wrong. Even if I don't understand oom_kill.c the patch > looks obviously good to me, even from "common sense" pov. I am just > curious. > > So, my understanding is: we are going to kill the whole thread group > but TIF_MEMDIE is per-thread. Mark the whole thread group as TIF_MEMDIE > so that any thread can notice this flag and (say, __alloc_pages_slowpath) > fail asap. > > Is my understanding correct? > > Oleg. > -- 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: email@kvack.org