Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: serialize OOM kill operations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dave Peterson wrote:
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

When you are holding the spinlock, you can't schedule and the lock
really should be released by the same process that took it. Are you
OK with that?


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...

mm_struct already has what you want -- dumpable:2 -- if you just put
your bit in an adjacent bitfield, you'll be right.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -
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]
  Powered by Linux