From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] select_bad_process: cleanup 'releasing' check
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:44:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060828104459.GA14010@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060827182538.GA1779@oleg>
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 10:25:38PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On top of "select_bad_process: kill a bogus PF_DEAD/TASK_DEAD check"
>
> No logic changes, but imho easier to read.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
>
> --- 2.6.18-rc4/mm/oom_kill.c~ 2006-08-27 20:56:23.000000000 +0400
> +++ 2.6.18-rc4/mm/oom_kill.c 2006-08-27 21:58:32.000000000 +0400
> @@ -205,7 +205,6 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_pr
> do_posix_clock_monotonic_gettime(&uptime);
> do_each_thread(g, p) {
> unsigned long points;
> - int releasing;
>
> /*
> * skip kernel threads and tasks which have already released
> @@ -227,16 +226,15 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_pr
> * the process of exiting and releasing its resources.
> * Otherwise we could get an OOM deadlock.
> */
> - releasing = test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE) ||
> - p->flags & PF_EXITING;
> - if (releasing) {
> - if (p->flags & PF_EXITING && p == current) {
> - chosen = p;
> - *ppoints = ULONG_MAX;
> - break;
> - }
> - return ERR_PTR(-1UL);
> - }
> + if ((p->flags & PF_EXITING) && p == current) {
> + chosen = p;
> + *ppoints = ULONG_MAX;
> + break;
> + }
> + if ((p->flags & PF_EXITING) ||
> + test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE))
> + return ERR_PTR(-1UL);
> +
Hmm, actually I think I spot a bug in the original logic: we don't want
to have more than 1 task with TIF_MEMDIE at once, becaues that gives it
access to memory reserves (but I saw it first in the new formulation, so
maybe that does suggest it is more readable ;)
What I think should be done is the check for TIF_MEMDIE (and return -1)
first, and then the PF_EXITING test. At which point, if current is found to
be exiting, it should be chosen but not break... that way a subsequent MEMDIE
or EXITING task has the chance to trigger the -1 return.
Anyway, if you don't want to do all that, I will when my hand gets better.
Otherwise the 3 patches you sent look good, they could all have an
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Thanks,
Nick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-28 10:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-27 18:25 [PATCH -mm] select_bad_process: cleanup 'releasing' check Oleg Nesterov
2006-08-28 10:44 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2006-08-28 15:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060828104459.GA14010@wotan.suse.de \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox