Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:16:51 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] oom: move oom_adj to signal_struct | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> |
| |
2009/8/6 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>: > Sorry for late reply. And sorry, I didn't read these patches carefully yet, > probably missed something... > > On 08/04, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> >> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c >> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c >> @@ -34,6 +34,31 @@ int sysctl_oom_dump_tasks; >> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(zone_scan_lock); >> /* #define DEBUG */ >> >> +int get_oom_adj(struct task_struct *tsk) > > is it used outside oom_kill.c ?
Good catch. Will fix.
>> +{ >> + unsigned long flags; >> + int oom_adj = OOM_DISABLE; >> + >> + if (tsk->mm && lock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags)) { > > Minor nit. _Afaics_, unlike proc, oom_kill.c never needs lock_task_sighand() > to access ->signal->oom_adj. > > If the task was found under tasklist_lock by for_each_process/do_each_thread > it must have the valid ->signal != NULL and it can't go away.
Thanks good suggestion! Will fix.
> With these patches I think mm-introduce-proc-pid-oom_adj_child.patch should > be dropped. This is good ;)
I agree, It should be dropped. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |