Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:17:43 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: mm->oom_disable_count is broken |
| |
On 08/29, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > And. personally I dislike it because ->oom_disable_count is just another > > proof that ->oom_score_adj should be in ->mm, not per-process. IIRC, > > you already explained me why we can't do this, but - sorry - I forgot. > > May be something with vfork... Could you explain this again? > > I actually really wanted oom_score_adj to be in the ->mm, it would > simplify a lot of the code :) The problem was the inheritance property: > we expect a job scheduler that is OOM_DISABLE to be able to vfork, change > the oom_score_adj of the child, and then exec so that it is not oom > disabled before starting to allocate memory.
Ah, I see. Thanks.
And yes, now I recall this is what you already explained ;)
Damn.
Oleg.
| |