From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D1646B005A for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 03:34:44 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] oom: move oom_adj to signal_struct Message-ID: <20090806013444.GA22095@redhat.com> References: <20090804191031.6A3D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090804192514.6A40.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090804192514.6A40.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: LKML , Paul Menage , David Rientjes , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-mm List-ID: 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 ? > +{ > + 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. With these patches I think mm-introduce-proc-pid-oom_adj_child.patch should be dropped. This is good ;) Oleg. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org