[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1504281539520.10203@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] mm: oom_kill: generalize OOM progress waitqueue
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> It turns out that the mechanism to wait for exiting OOM victims is
> less generic than it looks: it won't issue wakeups unless the OOM
> killer is disabled.
>
> The reason this check was added was the thought that, since only the
> OOM disabling code would wait on this queue, wakeup operations could
> be saved when that specific consumer is known to be absent.
>
> However, this is quite the handgrenade. Later attempts to reuse the
> waitqueue for other purposes will lead to completely unexpected bugs
> and the failure mode will appear seemingly illogical. Generally,
> providers shouldn't make unnecessary assumptions about consumers.
>
> This could have been replaced with waitqueue_active(), but it only
> saves a few instructions in one of the coldest paths in the kernel.
> Simply remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
--
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