[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140605160029.GA28812@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 18:00:29 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc: hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...e.cz, bsingharora@...il.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
vdavydov@...allels.com, tj@...nel.org, handai.szj@...bao.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] oom: Be less verbose if the oom_control event fd
has listeners
On 06/05, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
> Am 05.06.2014 16:18, schrieb Oleg Nesterov:
> > On 06/05, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >>
> >> +int mem_cgroup_has_listeners(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> >> +{
> >> + int ret = 0;
> >> +
> >> + if (!memcg)
> >> + goto out;
> >> +
> >> + spin_lock(&memcg_oom_lock);
> >> + ret = !list_empty(&memcg->oom_notify);
> >> + spin_unlock(&memcg_oom_lock);
> >> +
> >> +out:
> >> + return ret;
> >> +}
> >
> > Do we really need memcg_oom_lock to check list_empty() ? With or without
> > this lock we can race with list_add/del anyway, and I guess we do not care.
>
> Hmm, in mm/memcontrol.c all list_dev/add are under memcg_oom_lock.
And? How this lock can help to check list_empty() ?
list_add/del can come right after mem_cgroup_has_listeners() and change
the value of list_empty() anyway.
> What do I miss?
Or me...
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