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 154836B01C7 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pvg6 with SMTP id 6so737973pvg.14 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:41:27 +0900 From: Minchan Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] oom: don't try to kill oom_unkillable child Message-ID: <20100616144127.GA9278@barrios-desktop> References: <20100616201948.72D7.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100616201948.72D7.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 08:29:13PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Now, badness() doesn't care neigher CPUSET nor mempolicy. Then > if the victim child process have disjoint nodemask, __out_of_memory() > can makes kernel hang eventually. > > This patch fixes it. > > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim This patch inclues two things. 1. consider cpuset and mempolicy in oom_kill_process 2. Simplify mempolicy oom check with nodemask != NULL in select_bad_process. 1) change behavior but 2) is just cleanup. It should have been in another patch to reivew easily. :) -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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