On Thu 21-06-18 10:37:51, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:09:27AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > @@ -496,14 +496,14 @@ void mem_cgroup_print_oom_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> >
> > static inline void mem_cgroup_oom_enable(void)
> > {
> > - WARN_ON(current->memcg_may_oom);
> > - current->memcg_may_oom = 1;
> > + WARN_ON(current->in_user_fault);
> > + current->in_user_fault = 1;
> > }
> >
> > static inline void mem_cgroup_oom_disable(void)
> > {
> > - WARN_ON(!current->memcg_may_oom);
> > - current->memcg_may_oom = 0;
> > + WARN_ON(!current->in_user_fault);
> > + current->in_user_fault = 0;
> > }
>
> Would it make more sense to rename these to
> mem_cgroup_enter_user_fault(), mem_cgroup_exit_user_fault()?
OK, makes sense. It is less explicit about the oom behavior...
> Other than that, this looks great to me.
Thanks for the review! I will wait few days for other feedback and
retest and repost then.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
