On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:58:17 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:05:49 +0200 > Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > @@ -1893,6 +1942,8 @@ bool mem_cgroup_handle_oom(struct mem_cgroup *mem, gfp_t mask) > > does: > > : memcg_wakeup_oom(mem); > : mutex_unlock(&memcg_oom_mutex); > : > : mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(mem); > : > : if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) || fatal_signal_pending(current)) > : return false; > : /* Give chance to dying process */ > : schedule_timeout(1); > : return true; > : } > > Calling schedule_timeout() in state TASK_RUNNING is equivalent to > calling schedule() and then pointlessly wasting some CPU cycles. > Ouch (--; > Someone might want to take a look at that, and wonder why this bug > wasn't detected in testing ;) > I wonder just removing this is okay....because we didn't noticed this in our recent oom tests. I'll do some. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>