[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110721135817.baab2a2c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:58:17 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] memcg: make oom_lock 0 and 1 based rather than
coutner
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:05:49 +0200
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
> @@ -1893,6 +1942,8 @@ bool mem_cgroup_handle_oom(struct mem_cgroup *mem, gfp_t mask)
does:
: memcg_wakeup_oom(mem);
: mutex_unlock(&memcg_oom_mutex);
:
: mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(mem);
:
: if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) || fatal_signal_pending(current))
: return false;
: /* Give chance to dying process */
: schedule_timeout(1);
: return true;
: }
Calling schedule_timeout() in state TASK_RUNNING is equivalent to
calling schedule() and then pointlessly wasting some CPU cycles.
Someone might want to take a look at that, and wonder why this bug
wasn't detected in testing ;)
--
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