On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:12 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Minchan Kim wrote: > >> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > Thanks! > >> Seem to be reasonable and code don't have a problem. >> But couldn't we make the function in general(ex, passed task_struct) >> and use it when we change oom_score_adj(ex, oom_score_adj_write)? >> > > I thought about doing that, but oom_score_adj_write doesn't operate on > current, so it needs to lock p->sighand differently and also does a test > to ensure that the new value is only less than the current value for > CAP_SYS_RESOURCE. ÂThat test is required to take place under the lock as > well. > Yes. We already have facilities for it(ex, task_lock, lock_task_sighand). And I think CAP_SYS_RESOURCE check in general function don't have a problem. Of course, it adds unnecessary overhead slightly but it's not a hot path. What's problem for you to go ahead? -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href