Re: [patch 1/5] oom: don't kill unkillable children or siblings

Nick Piggin
2006-10-13T06:32:06Z

Andrew Morton wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:09:43 +0200 (CEST)
>Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:
>
>
>>Abort the kill if any of our threads have OOM_DISABLE set. Having this test
>>here also prevents any OOM_DISABLE child of the "selected" process from being
>>killed.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
>>
>>Index: linux-2.6/mm/oom_kill.c
>>===================================================================
>>--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/oom_kill.c
>>+++ linux-2.6/mm/oom_kill.c
>>@@ -312,15 +312,24 @@ static int oom_kill_task(struct task_str
>> if (mm == NULL)
>> return 1;
>>
>>+ /*
>>+ * Don't kill the process if any threads are set to OOM_DISABLE
>>+ */
>>+ do_each_thread(g, q) {
>>+ if (q->mm == mm && p->oomkilladj == OOM_DISABLE)
>>+ return 1;
>>+ } while_each_thread(g, q);
>>+
>> __oom_kill_task(p, message);
>>+
>> /*
>> * kill all processes that share the ->mm (i.e. all threads),
>> * but are in a different thread group
>> */
>>- do_each_thread(g, q)
>>+ do_each_thread(g, q) {
>> if (q->mm == mm && q->tgid != p->tgid)
>> __oom_kill_task(q, message);
>>- while_each_thread(g, q);
>>+ } while_each_thread(g, q);
>>
>> return 0;
>>
>
>One wonders whether OOM_DISABLE should be a property of the mm_struct, not
>of the task_struct.
>

Hmm... I don't think I could argue with that. I think this patch is needed
in the meantime though.

--

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com