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

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> But. Unless we kill signal->oom_adj, we have another reason for ->siglock,
> we can't update both oom_adj and oom_score_adj atomically, and if we race
> with another thread they can be inconsistent wrt each other. Yes, oom_adj
> is not actually used, except we report it back to user-space, but still.
> 
> So, I am going to send 2 patches. The first one factors out the code
> in base.c and kills signal->oom_adj, the next one removes ->siglock.
> 

Great, thanks!
--
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/