Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:17:07 -0800 | Subject | Re: + make-get_user_pages-interruptible.patch added to -mm tree | From | Ying Han <> |
| |
thanks Andrew.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:00:14 -0800 > Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: >> > Ying Han wrote: >> >> >> >> -static int sigkill_pending(struct task_struct *tsk) >> >> +int sigkill_pending(struct task_struct *tsk) >> >> { >> >> return sigismember(&tsk->pending.signal, SIGKILL) || >> >> sigismember(&tsk->signal->shared_pending.signal, SIGKILL); >> >> diff -puN mm/memory.c~make-get_user_pages-interruptible mm/memory.c >> >> --- a/mm/memory.c~make-get_user_pages-interruptible >> >> +++ a/mm/memory.c >> >> @@ -1219,12 +1219,12 @@ int __get_user_pages(struct task_struct >> >> struct page *page; >> >> >> >> /* >> >> - * If tsk is ooming, cut off its access to large memory >> >> - * allocations. It has a pending SIGKILL, but it can't >> >> - * be processed until returning to user space. >> >> + * If we have a pending SIGKILL, don't keep >> >> + * allocating memory. >> >> */ >> >> - if (unlikely(test_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_MEMDIE))) >> >> - return i ? i : -ENOMEM; >> >> + if (unlikely(sigkill_pending(current) || >> >> + sigkill_pending(tsk))) >> > >> > Please do not export/use sigkill_pending(). It is "private" for ptrace_stop() >> > (and actually should die imho). >> > >> > We have fatal_signal_pending() for that. >> > >> > Oleg. >> > > > (top-posting repaired..) > >> Thanks Oleg, i looked at the code again and this is a reasonable >> change. I will make the change on the patch. >> Andrew, >> should i make a patch based on current change or make the same >> patch as [V6]? > > I don't mind either way. I guess a fresh new patch would simplify > review for everyone. > > Note that fatal_signal_pending() is not an exact replacement for > sigkill_pending() - fatal_signal_pending() doesn't test the shared > pending signals. > yeah, i noticed that and that is why i used the sigkill_pending initially. But after a deeper look at the signal code, i found for SIGKILL ( signal we care about in this patch ), tsk->pending is a superset of tsk->signal->shared_pending.
--Ying > >
| |