On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 06/06, David Rientjes wrote: > > > > > There is a potential race where we kill the oom disabled task which is > > > highly unlikely but possible. It would happen if __set_oom_adj raced > > > with select_bad_process and then it is OK to consider the old value or > > > with fork when it should be acceptable as well. > > > Let's add a little note to the log so that people would tell us that > > > this really happens in the real life and it matters. > > > > > > > We cannot kill oom disabled processes at all, little race or otherwise. > > But this change doesn't really make it worse? >
Why is the patch asking users to report oom killing of a process that raced with setting /proc/pid/oom_score_adj to OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN? What is possibly actionable about it?
