[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1004010128050.6285@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 01:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
anfei <anfei.zhou@...il.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] proc: don't take ->siglock for /proc/pid/oom_adj
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > That doesn't work for depraceted_mode (sic), you'd need to test for
> > OOM_ADJUST_MIN and OOM_ADJUST_MAX in that case.
>
> Yes, probably "if (depraceted_mode)" should do more checks, I didn't try
> to verify that MIN/MAX are correctly converted. I showed this code to explain
> what I mean.
>
Ok, please cc me on the patch, it will be good to get rid of the duplicate
code and remove oom_adj from struct signal_struct.
> > There have been efforts to reuse as much of this code as possible for
> > other sysctl handlers as well, you might be better off looking for
>
> David, sorry ;) Right now I'd better try to stop the overloading of
> ->siglock. And, I'd like to shrink struct_signal if possible, but this
> is minor.
>
Do we need ->siglock? Why can't we just do
struct sighand_struct *sighand;
struct signal_struct *sig;
rcu_read_lock();
sighand = rcu_dereference(task->sighand);
if (!sighand) {
rcu_read_unlock();
return;
}
sig = task->signal;
... load/store to sig ...
rcu_read_unlock();
instead?
--
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