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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>