On Thu, 12 Dec 2013, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > index 28c9221b74ea..c72b03bf9679 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -1647,13 +1647,13 @@ static void move_unlock_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > > */
> > > void mem_cgroup_print_oom_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct task_struct *p)
> > > {
> > > - struct cgroup *task_cgrp;
> > > - struct cgroup *mem_cgrp;
> > > /*
> > > - * Need a buffer in BSS, can't rely on allocations. The code relies
> > > - * on the assumption that OOM is serialized for memory controller.
> > > - * If this assumption is broken, revisit this code.
> > > + * protects memcg_name and makes sure that parallel ooms do not
> > > + * interleave
> >
> > Parallel memcg oom kills can happen in disjoint memcg hierarchies, this
> > just prevents the printing of the statistics from interleaving. I'm not
> > sure if that's clear from this comment.
>
> What about this instead:
> * Protects memcg_name and makes sure that ooms from parallel
> * hierarchies do not interleave.
> ?
I think it would be better to explicitly say that you're referring only to
the printing here and that we're ensuring it does not interleave in the
kernel log.
--
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>