[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131204125728.GA2549@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:57:28 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
"Ma, Xindong" <xindong.ma@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@...il.com>,
"Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] oom_kill: change oom_kill.c to use
for_each_thread()
Sameer, I didn't notice this part yesterday.
On 12/03, Sameer Nanda wrote:
>
> > @@ -406,7 +409,7 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> > {
> > struct task_struct *victim = p;
> > struct task_struct *child;
> > - struct task_struct *t = p;
> > + struct task_struct *t;
> > struct mm_struct *mm;
> > unsigned int victim_points = 0;
> > static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(oom_rs, DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL,
> > @@ -437,7 +440,7 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> > * still freeing memory.
> > */
> > read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> This can be a rcu_read_lock now, I think?
No, we need tasklist for list_for_each_entry(t->children), it
is not rcu-safe.
Oleg.
--
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