Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937892AbXFGWfq (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:35:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965447AbXFGWfO (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:35:14 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:46434 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937718AbXFGWfM (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:35:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 15:34:59 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Will Schmidt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, anton@samba.org, liuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [PATCH i386] during VM oom condition, kill all threads in process group Message-Id: <20070607153459.2a1b3230.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070605174831.21740.33119.stgit@farscape.rchland.ibm.com> References: <20070605174831.21740.33119.stgit@farscape.rchland.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1374 Lines: 45 On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:48:32 -0500 Will Schmidt wrote: > > When we get into a state where VM has ran out of memory, and it's time to > thwack a process, we should take out the entire process group, rather than > just one thread. > > Tested on i386 > > Signed-off-by: Will Schmidt > --- > > arch/i386/mm/fault.c | 4 +++- > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/i386/mm/fault.c b/arch/i386/mm/fault.c > index b8c4e25..82aec0e 100644 > --- a/arch/i386/mm/fault.c > +++ b/arch/i386/mm/fault.c > @@ -567,8 +567,10 @@ out_of_memory: > goto survive; > } > printk("VM: killing process %s\n", tsk->comm); > - if (error_code & 4) > + if (error_code & 4) { > + zap_other_threads(tsk); > do_exit(SIGKILL); > + } > goto no_context; > zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock. If we're going to do this then we should probably create some new function (with a better name) which takes tasklsit_lock and then calls zap_other_threads(). Does this patch fix any observed-in-the-real-world problem? If so, please describe it. - 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/