On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > But. Unless we kill signal->oom_adj, we have another reason for ->siglock, > we can't update both oom_adj and oom_score_adj atomically, and if we race > with another thread they can be inconsistent wrt each other. Yes, oom_adj > is not actually used, except we report it back to user-space, but still. > > So, I am going to send 2 patches. The first one factors out the code > in base.c and kills signal->oom_adj, the next one removes ->siglock. > Great, thanks! -- 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>