[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100603152842.726E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:52:46 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] oom: introduce find_lock_task_mm() to fix !mm false positives
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> > Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> > Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
>
> Could you see my previous comment?
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/2/325
> Anyway, I added my review sign
>
> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Sorry, I had lost your comment ;)
But personally I don't like find_alive_subthread() because
such function actually does,
1) iterate threads in the same thread group
2) find alive (a.k.a have ->mm) thread
3) lock the task
and, I think (3) is most important role of this function.
So, I prefer to contain "lock" word.
Otherwise, people easily forget to cann task_unlock().
But I'm ok to rename any give me better name.
Thanks.
--
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