On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Johannes Weiner wrote: > It turns out that the mechanism to wait for exiting OOM victims is > less generic than it looks: it won't issue wakeups unless the OOM > killer is disabled. > > The reason this check was added was the thought that, since only the > OOM disabling code would wait on this queue, wakeup operations could > be saved when that specific consumer is known to be absent. > > However, this is quite the handgrenade. Later attempts to reuse the > waitqueue for other purposes will lead to completely unexpected bugs > and the failure mode will appear seemingly illogical. Generally, > providers shouldn't make unnecessary assumptions about consumers. > > This could have been replaced with waitqueue_active(), but it only > saves a few instructions in one of the coldest paths in the kernel. > Simply remove it. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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>