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 <[email protected]>
>
> --- 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 <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Nick
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]