On Thu 05-07-12 18:55:08, Wanpeng Li wrote: > From: Wanpeng Li <liwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > When oom-kill-disable modified by the user and current memcg use_hierarchy, > the change can occur, provided the current memcg has no children. If it > has children, return -EBUSY is enough. I do not think EBUSY makes any difference. I would much rather see the test go away... > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index 63e36e7..4b64fe0 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -4521,11 +4521,14 @@ static int mem_cgroup_oom_control_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, > > cgroup_lock(); > /* oom-kill-disable is a flag for subhierarchy. */ > - if ((parent->use_hierarchy) || > - (memcg->use_hierarchy && !list_empty(&cgrp->children))) { > + if (parent->use_hierarchy) { > cgroup_unlock(); > return -EINVAL; > + } else if (memcg->use_hierarchy && !list_empty(&cgrp->children)) { > + cgroup_unlock(); > + return -EBUSY; > } > + > memcg->oom_kill_disable = val; > if (!val) > memcg_oom_recover(memcg); > -- > 1.7.5.4 > -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>