Re: [PATCH 4/5] oom: don't kill random process

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 24 May 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> > > Also, this patch move finding sacrifice child logic into
> > > select_bad_process(). It's necessary to implement adequate
> > > no root bonus recalculation. and it makes good side effect,
> > > current logic doesn't behave as the doc.
> > > 
> > 
> > This is unnecessary and just makes the oom killer egregiously long.  We
> > are already diagnosing problems here at Google where the oom killer holds
> > tasklist_lock on the readside for far too long, causing other cpus waiting
> > for a write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) to encounter issues when irqs are
> > disabled and it is spinning.  A second tasklist scan is simply a
> > non-starter.
> > 
> >   [ This is also one of the reasons why we needed to introduce
> >     mm->oom_disable_count to prevent a second, expensive tasklist scan. ]
> 
> You misunderstand the code. Both select_bad_process() and oom_kill_process()
> are under tasklist_lock(). IOW, no change lock holding time.
> 

A second iteration through the tasklist in select_bad_process() will 
extend the time that tasklist_lock is held, which is what your patch does.  
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/