On Wednesday 26 April 2006 20:33, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Dave Peterson wrote:
> >If you prefer the above implementation, I can rework the patch as
> >above.
>
> I think you need a semaphore?
In this particular case, I think a semaphore is unnecessary because
we just want out_of_memory() to return to its caller if an OOM kill
is already in progress (as opposed to waiting in out_of_memory() and
then starting a new OOM kill operation). What I want to avoid is the
the following type of behavior:
1. Two processes (A and B) call out_of_memory() at roughly the
same time and race for oom_kill_lock. Let's say A wins and B
is delayed.
2. Process A shoots some process and releases oom_kill_lock.
3. Process B now acquires oom_kill_lock and shoots another
process. However this isn't really what we want to do if
the OOM kill done by A above freed enough memory to resolve
the OOM condition.
> Either way, drop the trivial wrappers.
Ok, I'll drop the wrappers.
> >>Second, can you arrange it without using the extra field in mm_struct
> >>and operation in the mmput fast path?
> >
> >I'm open to suggestions on other ways of implementing this. However I
> >think the performance impact of the proposed implementation should be
> >miniscule. The code added to mmput() executes only when the referece
> >count has reached 0; not on every decrement of the reference count.
> >Once the reference count has reached 0, the common-case behavior is
> >still only testing a boolean flag followed by a not-taken branch. The
> >use of unlikely() should help the compiler and CPU branch prediction
> >hardware minimize overhead in the typical case where oom_kill_finish()
> >is not called.
>
> Mainly the cost of increasing cacheline footprint. I think someone
> suggested using a flag bit somewhere... that'd be preferable.
Ok, I'll add a ->flags member to mm_struct and just use one bit for
the oom_notify value. Then if other users of mm_struct need flag
bits for other things in the future they can all share ->flags. I'll
rework my patches and repost shortly...
Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
