From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] oom: Be less verbose if the oom_control event fd has listeners Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 16:18:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20140605141841.GA23796@redhat.com> References: <1401976841-3899-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1401976841-3899-2-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1401976841-3899-2-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Richard Weinberger Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@suse.cz, bsingharora@gmail.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vdavydov@parallels.com, tj@kernel.org, handai.szj@taobao.com, rientjes@google.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On 06/05, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > +int mem_cgroup_has_listeners(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) > +{ > + int ret = 0; > + > + if (!memcg) > + goto out; > + > + spin_lock(&memcg_oom_lock); > + ret = !list_empty(&memcg->oom_notify); > + spin_unlock(&memcg_oom_lock); > + > +out: > + return ret; > +} Do we really need memcg_oom_lock to check list_empty() ? With or without this lock we can race with list_add/del anyway, and I guess we do not care. And perhaps the caller should check memcg != NULL. but this is subjective, I won't argue. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org