On 11/08, Sameer Nanda wrote: > > @@ -413,12 +413,20 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order, > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST); > @@ -456,10 +463,18 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order, > } > } > } while_each_thread(p, t); > - read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > > rcu_read_lock(); > + > p = find_lock_task_mm(victim); > + > + /* > + * Since while_each_thread is currently not RCU safe, this unlock of > + * tasklist_lock may need to be moved further down if any additional > + * while_each_thread loops get added to this function. > + */ > + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); Well, ack... but with this change find_lock_task_mm() relies on tasklist, so it makes sense to move rcu_read_lock() down before for_each_process(). Otherwise this looks confusing, but I won't insist. Oleg. -- 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>