On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 06:31:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 01-06-13 02:11:51, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > @@ -2076,6 +2077,7 @@ static void memcg_wakeup_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > {
> > /* for filtering, pass "memcg" as argument. */
> > __wake_up(&memcg_oom_waitq, TASK_NORMAL, 0, memcg);
> > + atomic_inc(&memcg->oom_wakeups);
> > }
> >
> > static void memcg_oom_recover(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> [...]
> > + prepare_to_wait(&memcg_oom_waitq, &owait.wait, TASK_KILLABLE);
> > + /* Only sleep if we didn't miss any wakeups since OOM */
> > + if (atomic_read(&memcg->oom_wakeups) == current->memcg_oom.wakeups)
> > + schedule();
>
> On the way home it occured to me that the ordering might be wrong here.
> The wake up can be lost here.
> __wake_up(memcg_oom_waitq)
> <preempted>
> prepare_to_wait
> atomic_read(&memcg->oom_wakeups)
> atomic_inc(oom_wakeups)
>
> I guess we want atomic_inc before __wake_up, right?
I think you are right, thanks for spotting this. Will be fixed in
version 2.
--
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>