Re: [PATCH 03/11] oom: make oom_unkillable_task() helper function

[Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:28:37PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Now, we have the same task check in two places. Unify it.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  mm/oom_kill.c |   33 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index dc8589e..a4a5439 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -101,6 +101,26 @@ static struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(struct task_struct *p)
>  	return NULL;
>  }
>  
> +/* return true if the task is not adequate as candidate victim task. */
> +static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> +			   const nodemask_t *nodemask)
> +{
> +	if (is_global_init(p))
> +		return true;
> +	if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	/* When mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() and p is not member of the group */
> +	if (mem && !task_in_mem_cgroup(p, mem))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	/* p may not have freeable memory in nodemask */
> +	if (!has_intersects_mems_allowed(p, nodemask))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +

I returend this patch as review 7/11. 
Why didn't you check p->signal->oom_adj == OOM_DISABLE in here?
I don't figure out code after your patches are applied totally.
But I think it would be check it in this function as function's name says.


-- 
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>