On Wed 01-06-16 00:29:33, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 30-05-16 19:35:05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, let me suggest this again. I think it should do
> > >
> > >
> > > if (SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP)
> > > return false;
> > >
> > > if (SIGN
On 05/31, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Mon 30-05-16 19:35:05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Well, let me suggest this again. I think it should do
> >
> >
> > if (SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP)
> > return false;
> >
> > if (SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT)
> > return true;
> >
> > if (thr
On Mon 30-05-16 19:35:05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > task_will_free_mem is rather weak.
>
> I was thinking about the similar change because I noticed that
> try_oom_reaper()
> is very, very wrong.
>
> To the point I think that we need another change for stable w
On 05/30, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> task_will_free_mem is rather weak.
I was thinking about the similar change because I noticed that try_oom_reaper()
is very, very wrong.
To the point I think that we need another change for stable which simply removes
spin_lock_irq(sighand->siglock) from try_oom_r
From: Michal Hocko
task_will_free_mem is rather weak. It doesn't really tell whether
the task has chance to drop its mm. 98748bd72200 ("oom: consider
multi-threaded tasks in task_will_free_mem") made a first step
into making it more robust for multi-threaded applications so now we
know that the w
I have updated the patch to not rely on the mm_users check because it is
not reliable as pointed by Tetsuo and we really want this function to be
reliable. I do not have a good and reliable way to check for existence
of external users sharing the mm so we are checking the whole list
unconditionally
On Thu 26-05-16 23:41:54, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Checks whether the given task is dying or exiting and likely to
> > + * release its address space. This means that all threads and processes
> > + * sharing the same mm have to be killed or exiting.
> > + */
> > +st
Michal Hocko wrote:
> +/*
> + * Checks whether the given task is dying or exiting and likely to
> + * release its address space. This means that all threads and processes
> + * sharing the same mm have to be killed or exiting.
> + */
> +static inline bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task
On Thu 26-05-16 23:11:47, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> > + if (mm) {
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + for_each_process(p) {
> > + bool vfork;
> > +
> > + /*
> > +* skip over vforked tasks because they are mostly
> > +
Michal Hocko wrote:
> +/*
> + * Checks whether the given task is dying or exiting and likely to
> + * release its address space. This means that all threads and processes
> + * sharing the same mm have to be killed or exiting.
> + */
> +static inline bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task
From: Michal Hocko
task_will_free_mem is rather weak. It doesn't really tell whether
the task has chance to drop its mm. 98748bd72200 ("oom: consider
multi-threaded tasks in task_will_free_mem") made a first step
into making it more robust for multi-threaded applications so now we
know that the w
11 matches
Mail list logo
