Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:03:50 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch 3/5] oom: less memdie |
| |
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:10:01 +0200 (CEST) Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:
> Don't cause all threads in all other thread groups to gain TIF_MEMDIE > otherwise we'll get a thundering herd eating out memory reserve. This > may not be the optimal scheme, but it fits our policy of allowing just > one TIF_MEMDIE in the system at once. > > Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> > > Index: linux-2.6/mm/oom_kill.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/oom_kill.c > +++ linux-2.6/mm/oom_kill.c > @@ -322,11 +322,12 @@ static int oom_kill_task(struct task_str > > /* > * kill all processes that share the ->mm (i.e. all threads), > - * but are in a different thread group. > + * but are in a different thread group. Don't let them have access > + * to memory reserves though, otherwise we might deplete all memory. > */ > do_each_thread(g, q) { > if (q->mm == mm && q->tgid != p->tgid) > - __oom_kill_task(q, 1); > + force_sig(SIGKILL, p); > } while_each_thread(g, q); >
Curious. How much testing did you do of this stuff? I assume there were some observed problems. What were they, and what was the observed effect of these changes?
Thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |