Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Aug 2020 21:12:25 +0200 | From | Michal Hocko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm, oom_adj: don't loop through tasks in __set_oom_adj when not necessary |
| |
On Tue 25-08-20 10:36:45, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:38 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote: [...] > > > diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h > > > index f022f581ac29..861f22bd4706 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/oom.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/oom.h > > > @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ struct oom_control { > > > }; > > > > > > extern struct mutex oom_lock; > > > +extern struct mutex oom_adj_lock; > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > I understand moving this lock by why renaming it? > > To be consistent with the mutex name right above it. I'm ok keeping it > as before if this is too much additional churn. I guess Michal deals > with this code more than anyone else, so I'll wait for him to comment > on this one.
I cannot say I would care deeply about naming. Consistency looks nice but if there is a preference to keep the lock then I will not object.
-- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
| |