* OOM may be being too nice to killed processes
@ 2001-11-04 20:36 Adam Pennington
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Adam Pennington @ 2001-11-04 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: riel
I may be misunderstanding this, but looking at this portion of code from
the oom task killer... Isn't it dangerous to give a process PF_MEMALLOC and
then only pass it a SIGTERM? My take is that the high priority bump up
should only happen for the force_sig(SIGKILL,p).
/*
* We give our sacrificial lamb high priority and access to
* all the memory it needs. That way it should be able to
* exit() and clear out its resources quickly...
*/
p->counter = 5 * HZ;
p->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC;
/* This process has hardware access, be more careful. */
if (cap_t(p->cap_effective) & CAP_TO_MASK(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) {
force_sig(SIGTERM, p);
} else {
force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
}
Adam Pennington
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2001-11-04 20:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-11-04 20:36 OOM may be being too nice to killed processes Adam Pennington
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).