On 03/26, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:25:05 +0800
> Anfei Zhou <anfei.zhou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -381,6 +381,8 @@ static void dump_header(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> > */
> > static void __oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p, int verbose)
> > {
> > + struct task_struct *t;
> > +
> > if (is_global_init(p)) {
> > WARN_ON(1);
> > printk(KERN_WARNING "tried to kill init!\n");
> > @@ -412,6 +414,8 @@ static void __oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p, int verbose)
> > */
> > p->rt.time_slice = HZ;
> > set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
> > + for (t = next_thread(p); t != p; t = next_thread(t))
> > + set_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_MEMDIE);
> >
> > force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
>
> Don't we need some sort of locking while walking that ring?
This should be always called under tasklist_lock, I think.
At least this seems to be true in Linus's tree.
I'd suggest to do
- set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
+ t = p;
+ do {
+ set_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_MEMDIE);
+ } while_each_thread(p, t);
but this is matter of taste.
Off-topic, but we shouldn't use force_sig(), SIGKILL doesn't
need "force" semantics.
I'd wish I could understand the changelog ;)
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>