David Rientjes wrote:

quoted

@@ -171,7 +195,7 @@ unsigned long oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
 	if (oom_unkillable_task(p, memcg, nodemask))
 		return 0;

-	p = find_lock_task_mm(p);
+	p = find_lock_non_victim_task_mm(p);
 	if (!p)
 		return 0;

I understand how this may make your test case pass, but I simply don't 
understand how this could possibly be the correct thing to do.  This would 
cause oom_badness() to return 0 for any process where a thread has 
TIF_MEMDIE set.  If the oom killer is called from the page allocator, 
kills a thread, and it is recalled before that thread may exit, then this 
will panic the system if there are no other eligible processes to kill.

Why? oom_badness() is called after oom_scan_process_thread() returned OOM_SCAN_OK.
oom_scan_process_thread() returns OOM_SCAN_ABORT if a thread has TIF_MEMDIE set.

If the TIF_MEMDIE thread already exited, find_lock_non_victim_task_mm() acts like
find_lock_task_mm(). Otherwise, oom_scan_process_thread() acts like a blocker.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>