On 03/31, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > David, I just can't understand why
> > oom-badness-heuristic-rewrite.patch
> > duplicates the related code in fs/proc/base.c and why it preserves
> > the deprecated signal->oom_adj.
>
> You could combine the two write functions together and then two read
> functions together if you'd like.
Yes,
> > static ssize_t oom_any_adj_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> > size_t count, bool deprecated_mode)
> > {
> >
> > if (depraceted_mode) {
> > if (oom_score_adj == OOM_ADJUST_MAX)
> > oom_score_adj = OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX;
>
> ???
What?
> > else
> > oom_score_adj = (oom_score_adj * OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX) /
> > -OOM_DISABLE;
> > }
> >
> > if (oom_score_adj < OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN ||
> > oom_score_adj > OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX)
>
> That doesn't work for depraceted_mode (sic), you'd need to test for
> OOM_ADJUST_MIN and OOM_ADJUST_MAX in that case.
Yes, probably "if (depraceted_mode)" should do more checks, I didn't try
to verify that MIN/MAX are correctly converted. I showed this code to explain
what I mean.
> There have been efforts to reuse as much of this code as possible for
> other sysctl handlers as well, you might be better off looking for
David, sorry ;) Right now I'd better try to stop the overloading of
->siglock. And, I'd like to shrink struct_signal if possible, but this
is minor.
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>