[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] mm: serialize OOM kill operations
On Tuesday 25 April 2006 21:10, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Firstly why not use a semaphore and trylocks instead of your homebrew
> lock?

Are you suggesting something like this?

spinlock_t oom_kill_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;

static inline int oom_kill_start(void)
return !spin_trylock(&oom_kill_lock);

static inline void oom_kill_finish()

If you prefer the above implementation, I can rework the patch as

> Second, can you arrange it without using the extra field in mm_struct
> and operation in the mmput fast path?

I'm open to suggestions on other ways of implementing this. However I
think the performance impact of the proposed implementation should be
miniscule. The code added to mmput() executes only when the referece
count has reached 0; not on every decrement of the reference count.
Once the reference count has reached 0, the common-case behavior is
still only testing a boolean flag followed by a not-taken branch. The
use of unlikely() should help the compiler and CPU branch prediction
hardware minimize overhead in the typical case where oom_kill_finish()
is not called.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-04-26 19:17    [W:0.080 / U:5.388 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site