On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Johannes Weiner wrote: > It turns out that the mechanism to wait for exiting OOM victims is > less generic than it looks: it won't issue wakeups unless the OOM > killer is disabled. > > The reason this check was added was the thought that, since only the > OOM disabling code would wait on this queue, wakeup operations could > be saved when that specific consumer is known to be absent. > > However, this is quite the handgrenade. Later attempts to reuse the > waitqueue for other purposes will lead to completely unexpected bugs > and the failure mode will appear seemingly illogical. Generally, > providers shouldn't make unnecessary assumptions about consumers. > > This could have been replaced with waitqueue_active(), but it only > saves a few instructions in one of the coldest paths in the kernel. > Simply remove it. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <han...@cmpxchg.org> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.cz>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rient...@google.com> -- 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/
