[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110722091557.f78a7a9e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:15:57 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] memcg: make oom_lock 0 and 1 based rather than
coutner
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:58:17 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
Ouch (--;
> Someone might want to take a look at that, and wonder why this bug
> wasn't detected in testing ;)
>
I wonder just removing this is okay....because we didn't noticed this
in our recent oom tests.
I'll do some.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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