public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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