Re: mm->oom_disable_count is broken

[Oleg Nesterov]

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.

--
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/