On Thu 17-12-15 12:00:04, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:55:11 -0800 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Ups. You are right. I will go with msleep_interruptible(100).
> >
> > I don't think that's right.
> >
> > If a signal happens, that loop is now (again) just busy-looping.
>
> It's called only by a kernel thread so no signal_pending().
Yes that was the thinking.
> This relationship is a bit unobvious and fragile, but we do it in
> quite a few places.
I guess Linus is right and __set_task_state(current, TASK_IDLE) would be
better and easier to read.
---
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 4b0a5d8b92e1..eed99506b891 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -472,8 +472,10 @@ static void oom_reap_vmas(struct mm_struct *mm)
int attempts = 0;
/* Retry the down_read_trylock(mmap_sem) a few times */
- while (attempts++ < 10 && !__oom_reap_vmas(mm))
- msleep_interruptible(100);
+ while (attempts++ < 10 && !__oom_reap_vmas(mm)) {
+ __set_task_state(current, TASK_IDLE);
+ schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
+ }
/* Drop a reference taken by wake_oom_reaper */
mmdrop(mm);
--
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>