Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem

From	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem
Date	2016-06-16 16:40 +0200
Message-ID	<rKGCB-14P-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <rI82r-6RA-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <rI985-7ym-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rIMj7-CP-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rJye5-5AU-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rKF3Q-8v4-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu 16-06-16 21:54:27, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sat 11-06-16 17:10:03, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> I still don't like it. current->mm == NULL in
> 
> -	if (current->mm &&
> -	    (fatal_signal_pending(current) || task_will_free_mem(current))) {
> +	if (task_will_free_mem(current)) {
> 
> is not highly unlikely. You obviously break commit d7a94e7e11badf84
> ("oom: don't count on mm-less current process") on CONFIG_MMU=n kernels.

I still fail to see why you care about that case so much. The heuristic
was broken for other reasons before this patch. The patch fixes a class
of issues for both mmu and nommu. I can restore the current->mm check
for now but the more I am thinking about it the less I am sure the
commit you are referring to is evem correct/necessary.

It claims that the OOM killer would be stuck because the child would be
sitting in the final schedule() until the parent reaps it. That is not
true, though, because victim would be unhashed down in release_task()
path so it is not visible by the oom killer when it is waiting for the
parent.  I have completely missed that part when reviewing the patch. Or
am I missing something...

Anyway, would you be OK with the patch if I added the current->mm check
and resolve its necessity in a separate patch?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Thread

Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-06-13 13:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-06-16 15:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-06-16 16:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-06-16 17:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-06-16 18:00 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-06-17 13:40 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-06-17 14:30 +0200
              Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-06-17 15:20 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-06-17 15:30 +0200

csiph-web