Sameer, I didn't notice this part yesterday.
On 12/03, Sameer Nanda wrote:
>
> > @@ -406,7 +409,7 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t
> > gfp_mask, int order,
> > {
> > struct task_struct *victim = p;
> > struct task_struct *child;
> > - struct task_struct *t = p;
> > + struct task_struct *t;
> > struct mm_struct *mm;
> > unsigned int victim_points = 0;
> > static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(oom_rs, DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL,
> > @@ -437,7 +440,7 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t
> > gfp_mask, int order,
> > * still freeing memory.
> > */
> > read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> This can be a rcu_read_lock now, I think?
No, we need tasklist for list_for_each_entry(t->children), it
is not rcu-safe.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
