From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753442Ab0ARH35 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:29:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752151Ab0ARH35 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:29:57 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:45990 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750780Ab0ARH34 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:29:56 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:29:46 +1100 From: Nick Piggin To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Jeff Dike , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-mm Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: OOM-Killed process don't invoke pagefault-oom Message-ID: <20100118072946.GA10052@laptop> References: <20100114191940.6749.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100114130257.GB8381@laptop> <20100115085146.6EC0.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100115085146.6EC0.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 03:21:40PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I don't think this should be required, because the oom killer does not > > kill a new task if there is already one in memdie state. > > > > If you have any further tweaks to the heuristic (such as a fatal signal > > pending), then it should probably go in select_bad_process() or > > somewhere like that. > > I see, I misunderstood. very thanks. Well, it *might* be a good idea to check for fatal signal pending similar your patch. Because I think there could be large latency between the signal and the task moving to exit state if the process is waiting uninterruptible in the kernel for a while. But if you do it in select_bad_process() then it would work for all classes of oom kill. Thanks, Nick