From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756233Ab0F3OTy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:19:54 -0400
Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:34778 "EHLO
	mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756113Ab0F3OTw (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:19:52 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=Ck2AIVoZI1fTgPxOJREG/izSV/KO9bK5iMr3wN/Aouc7o803qKZFALc6hBtHW4v2db
         nyh5Sc+AwFH+qJVqgTZkGX7U/NZMSXbOWMFLnjB/yiW07pah8yXy6cCmZVgBqKDWUOGi
         pYN5NFtUirnEqBw78517SAEJcfNxFlRlfOO7Q=
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:19:44 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
       KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] oom: make oom_unkillable_task() helper function
Message-ID: <20100630141944.GE15644@barrios-desktop>
References: <20100630172430.AA42.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
 <20100630182752.AA4E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100630182752.AA4E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:28:37PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Now, we have the same task check in two places. Unify it.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  mm/oom_kill.c |   33 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index dc8589e..a4a5439 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -101,6 +101,26 @@ static struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(struct task_struct *p)
>  	return NULL;
>  }
>  
> +/* return true if the task is not adequate as candidate victim task. */
> +static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> +			   const nodemask_t *nodemask)
> +{
> +	if (is_global_init(p))
> +		return true;
> +	if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	/* When mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() and p is not member of the group */
> +	if (mem && !task_in_mem_cgroup(p, mem))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	/* p may not have freeable memory in nodemask */
> +	if (!has_intersects_mems_allowed(p, nodemask))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +

I returend this patch as review 7/11. 
Why didn't you check p->signal->oom_adj == OOM_DISABLE in here?
I don't figure out code after your patches are applied totally.
But I think it would be check it in this function as function's name says.


-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim