Re: [patch -mm 2/2] oom: use old_mm for oom_disable_count in exec

[David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> > active_mm in the exec() path can be for an unrelated thread, so the 
> > oom_disable_count logic should use old_mm instead.
> > 
> > Reported-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/exec.c |    4 ++--
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -752,8 +752,8 @@ static int exec_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >  	tsk->mm = mm;
> >  	tsk->active_mm = mm;
> >  	activate_mm(active_mm, mm);
> > -	if (tsk->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN) {
> > -		atomic_dec(&active_mm->oom_disable_count);
> > +	if (old_mm && tsk->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN) {
> > +		atomic_dec(&old_mm->oom_disable_count);
> >  		atomic_inc(&tsk->mm->oom_disable_count);
> 
> Looks good. However you need to use tsk->signal->oom_adj == OOM_DISABLE because
> I removed OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN.
> 

KOSAKI, I'm not going to argue this with you.  VM patches, like where you 
revert oom_score_adj, go through Andrew.  That's not up for debate.

Thanks for the review.

--
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>