[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpV71KMJEm_-VY0EPJngM-yNHOVv5niXgy9+7jnWw3=wBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 17:20:50 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] freezer: check OOM kill signal while being frozen
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 1:55 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2014, Cong Wang wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/freezer.c b/kernel/freezer.c
>> index aa6a8aa..c6d189d 100644
>> --- a/kernel/freezer.c
>> +++ b/kernel/freezer.c
>> @@ -68,7 +68,9 @@ bool __refrigerator(bool check_kthr_stop)
>> spin_lock_irq(&freezer_lock);
>> current->flags |= PF_FROZEN;
>> if (!freezing(current) ||
>> - (check_kthr_stop && kthread_should_stop()))
>> + (check_kthr_stop && kthread_should_stop()) ||
>> + (test_tsk_thread_flag(current, TIF_MEMDIE) &&
>> + fatal_signal_pending(current)))
>> current->flags &= ~PF_FROZEN;
>> spin_unlock_irq(&freezer_lock);
>>
>
> All threads with TIF_MEMDIE set would have been killed, why is the check
> for fatal_signal_pending(current) needed?
So just checking TIF_MEMDIE is enough, right?
>
> You can also use test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) instead since you're only
> concerned with current.
>
OK, will do.
> Furthermore, that conditional is getting difficult to read. Maybe it
> would help to have a helper function that returns bool that determines
> whether PF_FROZEN should be cleared?
Makes sense.
Thanks.
--
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