On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, David Rientjes wrote: > I think it's better, thanks. However, does it address the question about > why __oom_reap_task_mm() needs oom_lock protection? Perhaps it would be > helpful to mention synchronization between reaping triggered from > oom_reaper and by exit_mmap(). >
Actually, can't we remove the need to take oom_lock in exit_mmap() if __oom_reap_task_mm() can do a test and set on MMF_UNSTABLE and, if already set, bail out immediately?
