[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1804241525280.238665@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
cc: mhocko@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, aarcange@...hat.com,
guro@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2] mm, oom: fix concurrent munlock and oom reaper
unmap
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > One of the reasons that I extracted __oom_reap_task_mm() out of the new
> > oom_reap_task_mm() is to avoid the checks that would be unnecessary when
> > called from exit_mmap(). In this case, we can ignore the
> > mm_has_blockable_invalidate_notifiers() check because exit_mmap() has
> > already done mmu_notifier_release(). So I don't think there's a concern
> > about __oom_reap_task_mm() blocking while holding oom_lock. Unless you
> > are referring to something else?
>
> Oh, mmu_notifier_release() made mm_has_blockable_invalidate_notifiers() == false. OK.
>
> But I want comments why it is safe; I will probably miss that dependency
> when we move that code next time.
>
Ok, makes sense. I'll send a v3 to update the comment.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists