On Fri 12-08-16 11:41:13, Michal Hocko wrote:

On Wed 03-08-16 23:08:04, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

quoted

sorry for delay, I am travelling till the end of the week.

Same here...

quoted

On 08/01, Michal Hocko wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

We should also check for vfork because
this is killable since d68b46fe16ad ("vfork: make it killable").

Hmm, why? Can't understand... In any case this check doesn't look right, the
comment says "a killed vfork parent" while tsk->vfork_done != NULL means it
is a vforked child.

So if we want this change, why we can't simply do

	-	if (!(tsk->flags & PF_SIGNALED) &&
	+	if (!(tsk->signal->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP) &&

?

This is what I had initially. But then the comment above the check made
me worried that the parent of vforked child might get confused if the
flag is cleared. I might have completely misunderstood the point of the
comment though. So if you believe that vfork_done check is incorrect I
can drop it. It shouldn't have any effect on the nscd usecase AFAIU.

So should I drop the vfork check and repost or we do not care about this
"regression" and declare nscd broken because it relies on a behavior
which is not in fact guaranteed by the kernel?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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>