From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: 2.5.68-mm2
Date: 23 Apr 2003 12:50:46 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1051116646.2756.2.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030423095926.GJ8931@holomorphy.com>
On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 05:59, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> rml and I coordinated to put together a small patch (combining both
> our own) for properly locking the static variables in out_of_memory().
> There's not any evidence things are going wrong here now, but it at
> least addresses the visible lack of locking in out_of_memory().
Thank you for posting this, wli.
> - first = now;
> + /*
> + * We dropped the lock above, so check to be sure the variable
> + * first only ever increases to prevent false OOM's.
> + */
> + if (time_after(now, first))
> + first = now;
Just thinking... this little bit is actually a bug even on UP sans
kernel preemption, too, since oom_kill() can sleep. If it sleeps, and
another process enters out_of_memory(), 'now' and 'first' will be out of
sync.
So I think this patch is a Good Thing in more ways than the obvious SMP
or kernel preemption issue.
Robert Love
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-23 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-04-23 8:20 2.5.68-mm2 Andrew Morton
2003-04-23 9:59 ` 2.5.68-mm2 William Lee Irwin III
2003-04-23 16:50 ` Robert Love [this message]
2003-04-23 16:57 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-23 17:11 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Robert Love
2003-04-24 9:14 ` 2.5.68-mm2 William Lee Irwin III
2003-04-23 14:51 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-23 15:14 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Alex Tomas
2003-04-23 21:46 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Andrew Morton
2003-04-23 21:47 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-24 3:39 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Benjamin LaHaise
2003-04-24 21:13 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-24 23:13 ` objrmap (was 2.5.68-mm2) Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-24 3:36 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Benjamin LaHaise
2003-04-24 20:24 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Bill Davidsen
2003-04-24 20:33 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Benjamin LaHaise
2003-04-25 17:56 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Bill Davidsen
2003-04-25 18:20 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Randy.Dunlap
2003-04-25 18:27 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Robert Love
2003-04-25 18:49 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-26 10:34 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Bill Davidsen
2003-04-26 15:34 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-05-01 6:19 ` [BUG] 2.5.68-mm2 and list.h Alexander Hoogerhuis
2003-05-01 6:31 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1051116646.2756.2.camel@localhost \
--to=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).