On 06/05, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
> Am 05.06.2014 16:18, schrieb Oleg Nesterov:
> > On 06/05, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >>
> >> +int mem_cgroup_has_listeners(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> >> +{
> >> + int ret = 0;
> >> +
> >> + if (!memcg)
> >> + goto out;
> >> +
> >> + spin_lock(&memcg_oom_lock);
> >> + ret = !list_empty(&memcg->oom_notify);
> >> + spin_unlock(&memcg_oom_lock);
> >> +
> >> +out:
> >> + return ret;
> >> +}
> >
> > Do we really need memcg_oom_lock to check list_empty() ? With or without
> > this lock we can race with list_add/del anyway, and I guess we do not care.
>
> Hmm, in mm/memcontrol.c all list_dev/add are under memcg_oom_lock.
And? How this lock can help to check list_empty() ?
list_add/del can come right after mem_cgroup_has_listeners() and change
the value of list_empty() anyway.
> What do I miss?
Or me...
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>