Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:50:31 +0200 | From | Michal Hocko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -mm v2 2/3] mm/oom_kill: cleanup the "kill sharing same memory" loop |
| |
On Wed 30-09-15 20:24:08, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Purely cosmetic, but the complex "if" condition looks annoying to me. > Especially because it is not consistent with OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN check > which adds another if/continue. > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> --- > mm/oom_kill.c | 18 +++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > index b6b8c78..c189ee5 100644 > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > @@ -583,14 +583,18 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *p, > * pending fatal signal. > */ > rcu_read_lock(); > - for_each_process(p) > - if (p->mm == mm && !same_thread_group(p, victim) && > - !(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) { > - if (p->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN) > - continue; > + for_each_process(p) { > + if (p->mm != mm) > + continue; > + if (same_thread_group(p, victim)) > + continue; > + if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) > + continue; > + if (p->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN) > + continue; > > - do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true); > - } > + do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true); > + } > rcu_read_unlock(); > > mmput(mm); > -- > 2.4.3
-- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
| |