From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail6.bemta7.messagelabs.com (mail6.bemta7.messagelabs.com [216.82.255.55]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851576B00EA for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D133EE0BC for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:23:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E1E45DEE5 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:23:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1AD245DEE3 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:23:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68B81DB803B for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:23:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.146]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 909EB1DB8037 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:23:05 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:15:57 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] memcg: make oom_lock 0 and 1 based rather than coutner Message-Id: <20110722091557.f78a7a9e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20110721135817.baab2a2c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <44ec61829ed8a83b55dc90a7aebffdd82fe0e102.1310732789.git.mhocko@suse.cz> <20110721135817.baab2a2c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, Balbir Singh , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:58:17 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:05:49 +0200 > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > @@ -1893,6 +1942,8 @@ bool mem_cgroup_handle_oom(struct mem_cgroup *mem, gfp_t mask) > > does: > > : memcg_wakeup_oom(mem); > : mutex_unlock(&memcg_oom_mutex); > : > : mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(mem); > : > : if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) || fatal_signal_pending(current)) > : return false; > : /* Give chance to dying process */ > : schedule_timeout(1); > : return true; > : } > > Calling schedule_timeout() in state TASK_RUNNING is equivalent to > calling schedule() and then pointlessly wasting some CPU cycles. > Ouch (--; > Someone might want to take a look at that, and wonder why this bug > wasn't detected in testing ;) > I wonder just removing this is okay....because we didn't noticed this in our recent oom tests. I'll do some. Thanks, -Kame -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org