Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:08:47 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] oom_reaper: switch to struct list_head for reap queue |
| |
* Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de> wrote:
> >>Rather than implementing an open addressing linked list structure > >>ourselves, use the standard list_head structure to improve consistency > >>with the rest of the kernel and reduce confusion. > >> > >>Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > >>Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> > >>Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de> > >>--- > >> include/linux/sched.h | 6 +++++- > >> kernel/fork.c | 4 ++++ > >> mm/oom_kill.c | 24 +++++++++++++----------- > >> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h > >>index e93594b88130..d8bcd0f8c5fe 100644 > >>--- a/include/linux/sched.h > >>+++ b/include/linux/sched.h > >>@@ -1960,7 +1960,11 @@ struct task_struct { > >> #endif > >> int pagefault_disabled; > >> #ifdef CONFIG_MMU > >>- struct task_struct *oom_reaper_list; > >>+ /* > >>+ * List of threads that have to be reaped by OOM (rooted at > >>+ * &oom_reaper_list in mm/oom_kill.c). > >>+ */ > >>+ struct list_head oom_reaper_list; > > > >This is an extra pointer to task_struct and more lines of code to > >accomplish the same thing. Why would we want to do that? > > I don't think it's more "actual" lines of code (I think the wrapping is > inflating the line number count), but switching it means that it's more in > line with other queues in the kernel (it took me a bit to figure out what > was going on with oom_reaper_list beforehand).
It's still an extra pointer and extra generated code to do the same thing - a clear step backwards.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |