On Mon 10-02-14 13:40:55, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 19d5d4274e22..55e6731ebcd5 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -1687,7 +1687,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_print_oom_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct task_struct *p)
> > * protects memcg_name and makes sure that parallel ooms do not
> > * interleave
> > */
> > - static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(oom_info_lock);
> > + static DEFINE_MUTEX(oom_info_lock);
> > struct cgroup *task_cgrp;
> > struct cgroup *mem_cgrp;
> > static char memcg_name[PATH_MAX];
> > @@ -1698,7 +1698,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_print_oom_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct task_struct *p)
> > if (!p)
> > return;
> >
> > - spin_lock(&oom_info_lock);
> > + mutex_lock(&oom_info_lock);
> > rcu_read_lock();
> >
> > mem_cgrp = memcg->css.cgroup;
> > @@ -1767,7 +1767,7 @@ done:
> >
> > pr_cont("\n");
> > }
> > - spin_unlock(&oom_info_lock);
> > + mutex_unlock(&oom_info_lock);
> > }
> >
> > /*
>
> Can we change oom_info_lock() to only protecting memcg_name and forget
> about interleaving the hierarchical memcg stats instead?
Why? Is mutex or holding it for the whole mem_cgroup_print_oom_info a
big deal? I think that having clear oom report is really worth it.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>