* akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:

> The patch titled
> mm: invoke oom-killer from page fault
> has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
> mm-invoke-oom-killer-from-page-fault.patch
> Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
> a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
> b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
> c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
> reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
> See http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/added-to-mm.txt to find
> out what to do about this
> The current -mm tree may be found at http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: mm: invoke oom-killer from page fault
> From: Nick Piggin
> Rather than have the pagefault handler kill a process directly if it gets
> a VM_FAULT_OOM, have it call into the OOM killer.
> With increasingly sophisticated oom behaviour (cpusets, memory cgroups,
> oom killing throttling, oom priority adjustment or selective disabling,
> panic on oom, etc), it's silly to unconditionally kill the faulting
> process at page fault time. Create a hook for pagefault oom path to call
> into instead.
> Only converted x86 and uml so far.
> Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin
> Cc: Jeff Dike
> Cc: Ingo Molnar
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton

the x86 bits look sane in principle. Needs a lot of testing obviously.

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar

a small nit:

> + /*
> + * Give "p" a good chance of killing itself before we
> + * retry to allocate memory unless "p" is current
> + */
> + if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
> + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);

comment does not match up the code anymore, we only deal with 'current'

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/