[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A2691AD.9080105@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:07:25 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: mmotm 2009-06-02-16-11 uploaded (staging)
David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
>> drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c:106: error: 'struct task_struct' has no member named 'oomkilladj'
>>
>
> Thanks Randy.
>
> This is due to oom-move-oom_adj-value-from-task_struct-to-mm_struct.patch
> which was merged in mmotm early this morning.
>
> I had previously fixed this in an earlier version of the patch series, but
> people didn't agree that an oom killer change should touch staging files
> even though the Android lowmemorykiller is in both mmotm and git HEAD.
> See http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124200164711314.
>
> I'm still a little curious about why it was decided like that since it
> seems to be the simplest way to avoid these failures, which leave you with
> a broken build, and an unnecessary burden on maintainers to magically fix
> them up later (which I guess is now?).
>
> So when I moved oomkilladj from struct task_struct to struct mm_struct and
> renamed it to something more appropriate, I still think I should have been
> able to change drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c for those
> reasons and avoid all of this hassle.
>
> Anyway, here's a patch that should work and will hopefully now be
> accepted. I know Greg is the maintainer for the staging tree and we're
> talking about mmotm, but I don't know how else to do it anymore.
Ack, that works. Thanks.
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> --- a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> @@ -96,19 +96,21 @@ static int lowmem_shrink(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> for_each_process(p) {
> + struct mm_struct *mm;
> int oom_adj;
>
> task_lock(p);
> - if (!p->mm) {
> + mm = p->mm;
> + if (!mm) {
> task_unlock(p);
> continue;
> }
> - oom_adj = p->oomkilladj;
> + oom_adj = mm->oom_adj;
> if (oom_adj < min_adj) {
> task_unlock(p);
> continue;
> }
> - tasksize = get_mm_rss(p->mm);
> + tasksize = get_mm_rss(mm);
> task_unlock(p);
> if (tasksize <= 0)
> continue;
--
~Randy
LPC 2009, Sept. 23-25, Portland, Oregon
http://linuxplumbersconf.org/2009/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists