[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090806013444.GA22095@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 03:34:44 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] oom: move oom_adj to signal_struct
Sorry for late reply. And sorry, I didn't read these patches carefully yet,
probably missed something...
On 08/04, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,31 @@ int sysctl_oom_dump_tasks;
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(zone_scan_lock);
> /* #define DEBUG */
>
> +int get_oom_adj(struct task_struct *tsk)
is it used outside oom_kill.c ?
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int oom_adj = OOM_DISABLE;
> +
> + if (tsk->mm && lock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags)) {
Minor nit. _Afaics_, unlike proc, oom_kill.c never needs lock_task_sighand()
to access ->signal->oom_adj.
If the task was found under tasklist_lock by for_each_process/do_each_thread
it must have the valid ->signal != NULL and it can't go away.
With these patches I think mm-introduce-proc-pid-oom_adj_child.patch should
be dropped. This is good ;)
Oleg.
--
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