[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130603163012.GA23257@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:31:34 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, memcg: add oom killer delay
On Sat 01-06-13 02:11:51, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> @@ -2076,6 +2077,7 @@ static void memcg_wakeup_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> /* for filtering, pass "memcg" as argument. */
> __wake_up(&memcg_oom_waitq, TASK_NORMAL, 0, memcg);
> + atomic_inc(&memcg->oom_wakeups);
> }
>
> static void memcg_oom_recover(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
[...]
> + prepare_to_wait(&memcg_oom_waitq, &owait.wait, TASK_KILLABLE);
> + /* Only sleep if we didn't miss any wakeups since OOM */
> + if (atomic_read(&memcg->oom_wakeups) == current->memcg_oom.wakeups)
> + schedule();
On the way home it occured to me that the ordering might be wrong here.
The wake up can be lost here.
__wake_up(memcg_oom_waitq)
<preempted>
prepare_to_wait
atomic_read(&memcg->oom_wakeups)
atomic_inc(oom_wakeups)
I guess we want atomic_inc before __wake_up, right?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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