On Tue 09-10-18 22:14:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/10/09 21:58, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 09-10-18 21:52:12, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > >> On 2018/10/09 20:10, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>> On Tue 09-10-18 19:00:44, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > >>>>> 2) add OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN and do not kill tasks sharing mm and do not > >>>>> reap the mm in the rare case of the race. > >>>> > >>>> That is no problem. The mistake we made in 4.6 was that we updated > >>>> oom_score_adj > >>>> to -1000 (and allowed unprivileged users to OOM-lockup the system). > >>> > >>> I do not follow. > >>> > >> > >> http://tomoyo.osdn.jp/cgi-bin/lxr/source/mm/oom_kill.c?v=linux-4.6.7#L493 > > > > Ahh, so you are not referring to the current upstream code. Do you see > > any specific problem with the current one (well, except for the possible > > race which I have tried to evaluate). > > > > Yes. "task_will_free_mem(current) in out_of_memory() returns false due to > MMF_OOM_SKIP > being already set" is a problem for clone(CLONE_VM without > CLONE_THREAD/CLONE_SIGHAND) > with the current code.
a) I fail to see how that is related to your previous post and b) could you be more specific. Is there any other scenario from the two described in my earlier email? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
