Re: [PATCH 1/4] oom: move oom_adj to signal_struct

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

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, 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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>