Re: [PATCH -mm] proc: don't take ->siglock for /proc/pid/oom_adj

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> > That doesn't work for depraceted_mode (sic), you'd need to test for
> > OOM_ADJUST_MIN and OOM_ADJUST_MAX in that case.
> 
> Yes, probably "if (depraceted_mode)" should do more checks, I didn't try
> to verify that MIN/MAX are correctly converted. I showed this code to explain
> what I mean.
> 

Ok, please cc me on the patch, it will be good to get rid of the duplicate 
code and remove oom_adj from struct signal_struct.

> > There have been efforts to reuse as much of this code as possible for
> > other sysctl handlers as well, you might be better off looking for
> 
> David, sorry ;) Right now I'd better try to stop the overloading of
> ->siglock. And, I'd like to shrink struct_signal if possible, but this
> is minor.
> 

Do we need ->siglock?  Why can't we just do

	struct sighand_struct *sighand;
	struct signal_struct *sig;

	rcu_read_lock();
	sighand = rcu_dereference(task->sighand);
	if (!sighand) {
		rcu_read_unlock();
		return;
	}
	sig = task->signal;

	... load/store to sig ...

	rcu_read_unlock();

instead?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/