From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751417AbWJLOJi (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:09:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751418AbWJLOJi (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:09:38 -0400 Received: from mail.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:60352 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751417AbWJLOJi (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:09:38 -0400 From: Nick Piggin To: Linux Memory Management Cc: Linux Kernel , Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton Message-Id: <20061012120102.29671.31163.sendpatchset@linux.site> Subject: [rfc][patch 0/5] 2.6.19-rc1: oom killer fixes Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:09:34 +0200 (CEST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I've been prompted to take another look through the OOM killer because it turns out it is killing tasks that have had their oom_adj set to -17 (which is supposed to make them unkillable). So there are a number of problems, firstly, the child and sibling thread killing routines do not account for -17 children/siblings. Secondly, most architecture specific pagefault handlers do a direct kill of the current process if it takes a VM_FAULT_OOM. This is a pretty rare thing to happen, because there isn't a lot of higher order allocations happening, but it is not impossible. I think we can just call into the OOM killer here, and return to userspace... but I'd like comments about this. Thanks, Nick -- SuSE Labs