Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:15:57 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] memcg: make oom_lock 0 and 1 based rather than coutner |
| |
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:58:17 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:05:49 +0200 > Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote: > > > @@ -1893,6 +1942,8 @@ bool mem_cgroup_handle_oom(struct mem_cgroup *mem, gfp_t mask) > > does: > > : memcg_wakeup_oom(mem); > : mutex_unlock(&memcg_oom_mutex); > : > : mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(mem); > : > : if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) || fatal_signal_pending(current)) > : return false; > : /* Give chance to dying process */ > : schedule_timeout(1); > : return true; > : } > > Calling schedule_timeout() in state TASK_RUNNING is equivalent to > calling schedule() and then pointlessly wasting some CPU cycles. > Ouch (--;
> Someone might want to take a look at that, and wonder why this bug > wasn't detected in testing ;) > I wonder just removing this is okay....because we didn't noticed this in our recent oom tests.
I'll do some.
Thanks, -Kame
| |