Re: [patch] mm, memcg: add oom killer delay

[Michal Hocko]

On Sat 01-06-13 02:11:51, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> @@ -2076,6 +2077,7 @@ static void memcg_wakeup_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  {
>  	/* for filtering, pass "memcg" as argument. */
>  	__wake_up(&memcg_oom_waitq, TASK_NORMAL, 0, memcg);
> +	atomic_inc(&memcg->oom_wakeups);
>  }
>  
>  static void memcg_oom_recover(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
[...]
> +	prepare_to_wait(&memcg_oom_waitq, &owait.wait, TASK_KILLABLE);
> +	/* Only sleep if we didn't miss any wakeups since OOM */
> +	if (atomic_read(&memcg->oom_wakeups) == current->memcg_oom.wakeups)
> +		schedule();

On the way home it occured to me that the ordering might be wrong here.
The wake up can be lost here.
					__wake_up(memcg_oom_waitq)
					<preempted>
prepare_to_wait
atomic_read(&memcg->oom_wakeups)
					atomic_inc(oom_wakeups)

I guess we want atomic_inc before __wake_up, right?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/