[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160331085926.GB27831@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:59:26 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] introduce down_write_killable for rw_semaphore
On Wed 30-03-16 15:32:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 01:58:14PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I have tested on x86 with OOM situations with high mmap_sem contention
> > (basically many parallel page faults racing with many parallel mmap/munmap
> > tight loops) so the waiters for the write locks are routinely interrupted
> > by SIGKILL.
>
> Aside from the one niggle (as per the other email) they look good to me
> and I would take them through the tip/locking tree.
Thanks for the review! I understand that tip/locking would be the most
appropriate place but I am wondering whether this causes some issues
with the follow up patches which use this new API and which I expect to
go via Andrew's tree.
That being said I do not care much but then we have a potential
dependency between mmotm and tip/locking.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists