[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100708182134.CD3F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 18:24:21 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Divyesh Shah <dpshah@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: FYI: mmap_sem OOM patch
> On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:11 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > index f627779..4b3a1c7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > @@ -1062,7 +1062,10 @@ do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code)
> > bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, error_code, address);
> > return;
> > }
> > - down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE))
> > + down_read_unfair(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > + else
> > + down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > } else {
> > /*
> > * The above down_read_trylock() might have succeeded in
>
> I still think adding that _unfair interface is asking for trouble.
Can you please explain trouble that you worry? Why do we need to keep
thread fairness when OOM case?
btw, I also dislike unfair + /proc combination.
--
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