Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 544d47e5cbbd..86a48affb938 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -1896,7 +1896,7 @@ static int try_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t
> > gfp_mask,
> > * bypass the last charges so that they can exit quickly and
> > * free their memory.
> > */
> > - if (unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) ||
> > + if (unlikely(tsk_is_oom_victim(current) ||
> > fatal_signal_pending(current) ||
> > current->flags & PF_EXITING))
> > goto force;
>
> Did we check http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160909140508.go4...@dhcp22.suse.cz ?
>
> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > index c9f3569a76c7..65cc2f9aaa05 100644
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > struct mm_struct *mm)
> > * [...]
> > * out_of_memory
> > * select_bad_process
> > - * # no TIF_MEMDIE task selects new
> > victim
> > + * # no TIF_MEMDIE, selects new victim
> > * unmap_page_range # frees some memory
> > */
> > mutex_lock(&oom_lock);
>
> This comment is wrong. No MMF_OOM_SKIP mm selects new victim.
>
Oops. "MMF_OOM_SKIP mm selects new victim." according to
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201706271952.feb21375.sfjfhoqlotv...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
.
