[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f11576a0908052216i560b977by68c400020e786d47@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:16:51 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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
2009/8/6 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>:
> 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 ?
Good catch.
Will fix.
>> +{
>> + 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.
Thanks good suggestion!
Will fix.
> With these patches I think mm-introduce-proc-pid-oom_adj_child.patch should
> be dropped. This is good ;)
I agree, It should be dropped.
--
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