lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] mm: serialize OOM kill operations
Date
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()
{
spin_unlock(&oom_kill_lock);
}

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

> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-04-26 19:17    [W:0.055 / U:29.356 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site