Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm, oom_adj: don't loop through tasks in __set_oom_adj when not necessary

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>]

On Tue 25-08-20 10:36:45, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:38 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h
> > > index f022f581ac29..861f22bd4706 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/oom.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/oom.h
> > > @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ struct oom_control {
> > >  };
> > >
> > >  extern struct mutex oom_lock;
> > > +extern struct mutex oom_adj_lock;
> >                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > I understand moving this lock by why renaming it?
> 
> To be consistent with the mutex name right above it. I'm ok keeping it
> as before if this is too much additional churn. I guess Michal deals
> with this code more than anyone else, so I'll wait for him to comment
> on this one.

I cannot say I would care deeply about naming. Consistency looks nice
but if there is a preference to keep the lock then I will not object.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs