[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53909669.8000007@nod.at>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:10:17 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
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
Am 05.06.2014 18:00, schrieb Oleg Nesterov:
> 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.
Ahh, now I can follow your mind. :)
Thanks,
//richard
--
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