On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 02:44:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, npig...@suse.de wrote:
>
> > As explained in commit 1c0fe6e3bd, we want to call the architecture
> > independent
> > oom killer when getting an unexplained OOM from handle_mm_fault, rather than
> > simply killing current.
> >
> > Cc: linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org
> > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org>
> > Cc: linux-a...@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npig...@suse.de>
> > ---
> > Index: linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
> > @@ -359,15 +359,10 @@ bad_area_nosemaphore:
> > */
> > out_of_memory:
> > up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > - if (is_global_init(current)) {
> > - yield();
> > - down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > - goto survive;
> > - }
> > - printk("VM: killing process %s\n", current->comm);
> > - if (user_mode(regs))
> > - do_group_exit(SIGKILL);
> > - return SIGKILL;
> > + if (!user_mode(regs))
> > + return SIGKILL;
> > + pagefault_out_of_memory();
> > + return 0;
>
> Do we really want to return 0 and indicate that the fault was handled? It
> seems more consistent to do
>
> if (user_mode(regs))
> pagefault_out_of_memory();
> return SIGKILL;
Well we don't necessarily want to kill current.
pagefault_out_of_memory() could elect to send a SIGKILL if wants to, but
if it decides current should not be terminated, then we have to just
retry the page fault.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
