On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 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.
>
Ok, please cc me on the patch, it will be good to get rid of the duplicate
code and remove oom_adj from struct signal_struct.
> > 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.
>
Do we need ->siglock? Why can't we just do
struct sighand_struct *sighand;
struct signal_struct *sig;
rcu_read_lock();
sighand = rcu_dereference(task->sighand);
if (!sighand) {
rcu_read_unlock();
return;
}
sig = task->signal;
... load/store to sig ...
rcu_read_unlock();
instead?
--
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>