On 09/26/2013 01:56 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Ming Liu wrote:
We shouldn't be selecting a process where mm == init_mm in the first
place, so this wouldn't fix the issue entirely.
But if we add a control point for "mm == init_mm" in the first place(ie. in
oom_unkillable_tas
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Ming Liu wrote:
> > We shouldn't be selecting a process where mm == init_mm in the first
> > place, so this wouldn't fix the issue entirely.
>
> But if we add a control point for "mm == init_mm" in the first place(ie. in
> oom_unkillable_task), that would forbid the processes
On 09/25/2013 10:34 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Ming Liu wrote:
After selecting a task to kill, the oom killer iterates all processes and
kills all other user threads that share the same mm_struct in different
thread groups.
But in some extreme cases, the selected task happe
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Ming Liu wrote:
> After selecting a task to kill, the oom killer iterates all processes and
> kills all other user threads that share the same mm_struct in different
> thread groups.
>
> But in some extreme cases, the selected task happens to be a vfork child
> of init proces
After selecting a task to kill, the oom killer iterates all processes and
kills all other user threads that share the same mm_struct in different
thread groups.
But in some extreme cases, the selected task happens to be a vfork child
of init process sharing the same mm_struct with it, which causes
5 matches
Mail list logo