Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 15 Nov 2010 01:59:12 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [resend][PATCH 2/4] Revert "oom: deprecate oom_adj tunable" |
| |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> At v2.6.36-rc1, oom-killer doesn't work at all because YOU BROKE. > And I was working on fixing it. > > 2010-08-19 > http://marc.info/?t=128223176900001&r=1&w=2
This existed before my oom killer rewrite, it was only noticed because the rewrite enabled oom_dump_tasks by default.
> http://marc.info/?t=128221532700003&r=1&w=2
Yes, tasklist_lock was dropped in a mismerge of my patches when posting them. Thanks for finding it and posting a patch, I appreciate it.
> http://marc.info/?t=128221532500008&r=1&w=2 >
Yes, if a task was racing between oom_kill_process() and oom_kill_task() and all threads had dropped its mm between calls then there was a NULL pointer dereference, thanks for fixing that as well.
> However, You submitted new crap before the fixing. > > 2010-08-15 > http://marc.info/?t=128184669600001&r=1&w=2 >
This isn't "crap", this is a necessary bit to ensure that tasks that share an ->mm with a task immune from kill aren't killed themselves since we can't free the memory. We came to the consensus that it would be better to count the tasks that are OOM_DISABLE in the mm_struct to avoid the O(2*n) tasklist scan.
> If you tested mainline a bit, you could find the problem quickly. > You should have fixed mainline kernel at first. >
Thanks for finding a couple fixes during the 2.6.36-rc1 when the rewrite was first merged, it's much appreciated!
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |