On Wed 08-06-16 20:18:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > The victim selection code can be reduced because it is basically
> > shared between the two, only the iterator differs. But I guess that
> > can be eliminated by a simple helper.
>
> Thank you for CC: me. I like this clean up.
>
> > ---
> > include/linux/oom.h | 5 +++++
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 47 ++++++-----------------------------------
> > mm/oom_kill.c | 60
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> > 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
>
> I think we can apply your version with below changes folded into your version.
> (I think totalpages argument can be passed via oom_control as well. Also,
> according to
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201602192336.ejf90671.hmflfsvofjo...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
> ,
> we can safely replace oc->memcg in oom_badness() in oom_evaluate_task() with
> NULL. )
yes oom_badness can never see a task from outside of the memcg
hierarchy.
[...]
> +static enum oom_scan_t oom_scan_process_thread(struct oom_control *oc,
> + struct task_struct *task)
> {
> if (oom_unkillable_task(task, NULL, oc->nodemask))
> return OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE;
> @@ -307,6 +314,9 @@ int oom_evaluate_task(struct oom_control *oc, struct
> task_struct *p, unsigned lo
> case OOM_SCAN_CONTINUE:
> return 1;
> case OOM_SCAN_ABORT:
> + if (oc->chosen)
> + put_task_struct(oc->chosen);
> + oc->chosen = (void *) -1UL;
true including the memcg fixup.
> return 0;
> case OOM_SCAN_OK:
> break;
Thanks! I've updated the patch locally but I will wait for Vladimir what
he thinks about this wrt. the original approach.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
