From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932605AbWJLPTR (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:19:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932609AbWJLPTR (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:19:17 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:14060 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932605AbWJLPTQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:19:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:19:07 +0200 From: Nick Piggin To: Kirill Korotaev Cc: Linux Memory Management , Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch 5/5] oom: invoke OOM killer from pagefault handler Message-ID: <20061012151907.GB18463@wotan.suse.de> References: <20061012120102.29671.31163.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20061012120150.29671.48586.sendpatchset@linux.site> <452E5B4D.7000402@sw.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <452E5B4D.7000402@sw.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:12:13PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: > Nick, > > AFAICS, 1 page allocation which is done in page fault handler > can fail in the only case - OOM kills current, so if we failed > we should have TIF_MEMDIE and just kill current. > Selecting another process for killing if page fault fails means > taking another victim with the one being already killed. > Hi Kirill, I don't quite understand you. If the page allocation fails in the fault handler, we don't want to kill current if it is marked as OOM_DISABLE or sysctl_panic_on_oom is set... imagine a critical service in a failover system. It should be quite likely for another process to be kiled and provide enough memory to keep the system running. Presuming you have faith in the concept of the OOM killer ;) Cheers, Nick