Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:17:35 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH -mm] fix bad call of memcg_oom_recover at cancel move. |
| |
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:41 +0900 Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> > May I recommend the following change instead > > > > > > Don't crash on a null memcg being passed, check if memcg > > is NULL and handle the condition gracefully > > > > Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > > index c6ece0a..d71c488 100644 > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > > @@ -1370,7 +1370,7 @@ static void memcg_wakeup_oom(struct mem_cgroup *mem) > > > > static void memcg_oom_recover(struct mem_cgroup *mem) > > { > > - if (mem->oom_kill_disable && atomic_read(&mem->oom_lock)) > > + if (mem && mem->oom_kill_disable && atomic_read(&mem->oom_lock)) > > memcg_wakeup_oom(mem); > > } > > > I agree to this fix. > > Acked-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> >
I tend to dislike band-aid in callee. but it's not important here.
Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
| |