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

[Nick Piggin]

Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:09:43 +0200 (CEST)
> Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/