lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 1/4] OOM, PM: Do not miss OOM killed frozen tasks
Hello, Michal.

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 07:58:49PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Also change the return value semantic as the current one is little bit
> awkward. There is just one caller (try_to_freeze_tasks) which checks
> the return value and it is only interested whether the request was
> successful or the task blocks the freezing progress. It is natural to
> reflect the success by true rather than false.

I don't know about this. It's also customary to return %true when
further action needs to be taken. I don't think either is
particularly wrong but the flip seems gratuitous.

> bool freeze_task(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> @@ -129,12 +130,20 @@ bool freeze_task(struct task_struct *p)
> * normally.
> */
> if (freezer_should_skip(p))
> + return true;
> +
> + /*
> + * Do not check freezing state or attempt to freeze a task
> + * which has been killed by OOM killer. We are just waiting
> + * for the task to wake up and die.

Maybe saying sth like "consider the task freezing as ...." is a
clearer way to put it?

> + */
> + if (!test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE))
> return false;

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-14 20:01    [W:0.206 / U:3.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site