[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151208110653.GA25800@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 12:06:53 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...e.de,
rientjes@...gle.com, riel@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com,
oleg@...hat.com, andrea@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -v2] mm, oom: introduce oom reaper
On Tue 08-12-15 07:19:42, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Yes you are right! The reference count should be incremented before
> > publishing the new mm_to_reap. I thought that an elevated ref. count by
> > the caller would be enough but this was clearly wrong. Does the update
> > below looks better?
>
> I think that moving mmdrop() from oom_kill_process() to
> oom_reap_vmas() xor wake_oom_reaper() makes the patch simpler.
It surely is less lines of code but I am not sure it is simpler. I do
not think we should drop the reference in a different path than it is
taken. Maybe we will grow more users of wake_oom_reaper in the future
and this is quite subtle behavior.
>
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> + if (can_oom_reap)
> + wake_oom_reaper(mm); /* will call mmdrop() */
> + else
> + mmdrop(mm);
> - mmdrop(mm);
> put_task_struct(victim);
> }
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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