Re: [PATCH 03/10] proc, oom_adj: extract oom_score_adj setting into a helper

["Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>]

> 
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> 
> Currently we have two proc interfaces to set oom_score_adj. The legacy
> /proc/<pid>/oom_adj and /proc/<pid>/oom_score_adj which both have their
> specific handlers. Big part of the logic is duplicated so extract the
> common code into __set_oom_adj helper. Legacy knob still expects some
> details slightly different so make sure those are handled same way - e.g.
> the legacy mode ignores oom_score_adj_min and it warns about the usage.
> 
> This patch shouldn't introduce any functional changes.
> 
> Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> ---
>  fs/proc/base.c | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index 968d5ea06e62..a6a8fbdd5a1b 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -1037,7 +1037,47 @@ static ssize_t oom_adj_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count,
>  	return simple_read_from_buffer(buf, count, ppos, buffer, len);
>  }
> 
> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(oom_adj_mutex);
> +static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
> +{
> +	static DEFINE_MUTEX(oom_adj_mutex);

Writers are not excluded for readers!
Is this a hot path?

> +	struct task_struct *task;
> +	int err = 0;
> +
> +	task = get_proc_task(file_inode(file));
> +	if (!task)
> +		return -ESRCH;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&oom_adj_mutex);
> +	if (legacy) {
> +		if (oom_adj < task->signal->oom_score_adj &&
> +				!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
> +			err = -EACCES;
> +			goto err_unlock;
> +		}
> +		/*
> +		 * /proc/pid/oom_adj is provided for legacy purposes, ask users to use
> +		 * /proc/pid/oom_score_adj instead.
> +		 */
> +		pr_warn_once("%s (%d): /proc/%d/oom_adj is deprecated, please use /proc/%d/oom_score_adj instead.\n",
> +			  current->comm, task_pid_nr(current), task_pid_nr(task),
> +			  task_pid_nr(task));
> +	} else {
> +		if ((short)oom_adj < task->signal->oom_score_adj_min &&
> +				!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
> +			err = -EACCES;
> +			goto err_unlock;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	task->signal->oom_score_adj = oom_adj;
> +	if (!legacy && has_capability_noaudit(current, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
> +		task->signal->oom_score_adj_min = (short)oom_adj;
> +	trace_oom_score_adj_update(task);
> +err_unlock:
> +	mutex_unlock(&oom_adj_mutex);
> +	put_task_struct(task);
> +	return err;
> +}
> 
>  /*
>   * /proc/pid/oom_adj exists solely for backwards compatibility with previous
> @@ -1052,7 +1092,6 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(oom_adj_mutex);
>  static ssize_t oom_adj_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
>  			     size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
>  {
> -	struct task_struct *task;
>  	char buffer[PROC_NUMBUF];
>  	int oom_adj;
>  	int err;
> @@ -1074,12 +1113,6 @@ static ssize_t oom_adj_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
>  		goto out;
>  	}
> 
> -	task = get_proc_task(file_inode(file));
> -	if (!task) {
> -		err = -ESRCH;
> -		goto out;
> -	}
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * Scale /proc/pid/oom_score_adj appropriately ensuring that a maximum
>  	 * value is always attainable.
> @@ -1089,26 +1122,7 @@ static ssize_t oom_adj_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
>  	else
>  		oom_adj = (oom_adj * OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX) / -OOM_DISABLE;
> 
> -	mutex_lock(&oom_adj_mutex);
> -	if (oom_adj < task->signal->oom_score_adj &&
> -	    !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
> -		err = -EACCES;
> -		goto err_unlock;
> -	}
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * /proc/pid/oom_adj is provided for legacy purposes, ask users to use
> -	 * /proc/pid/oom_score_adj instead.
> -	 */
> -	pr_warn_once("%s (%d): /proc/%d/oom_adj is deprecated, please use /proc/%d/oom_score_adj instead.\n",
> -		  current->comm, task_pid_nr(current), task_pid_nr(task),
> -		  task_pid_nr(task));
> -
> -	task->signal->oom_score_adj = oom_adj;
> -	trace_oom_score_adj_update(task);
> -err_unlock:
> -	mutex_unlock(&oom_adj_mutex);
> -	put_task_struct(task);
> +	err = __set_oom_adj(file, oom_adj, true);
>  out:
>  	return err < 0 ? err : count;
>  }
> @@ -1138,7 +1152,6 @@ static ssize_t oom_score_adj_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
>  static ssize_t oom_score_adj_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
>  					size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
>  {
> -	struct task_struct *task;
>  	char buffer[PROC_NUMBUF];
>  	int oom_score_adj;
>  	int err;
> @@ -1160,28 +1173,7 @@ static ssize_t oom_score_adj_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
>  		goto out;
>  	}
> 
> -	task = get_proc_task(file_inode(file));
> -	if (!task) {
> -		err = -ESRCH;
> -		goto out;
> -	}
> -
> -	mutex_lock(&oom_adj_mutex);
> -	if ((short)oom_score_adj < task->signal->oom_score_adj_min &&
> -			!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
> -		err = -EACCES;
> -		goto err_unlock;
> -	}
> -
> -	task->signal->oom_score_adj = (short)oom_score_adj;
> -	if (has_capability_noaudit(current, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
> -		task->signal->oom_score_adj_min = (short)oom_score_adj;
> -
> -	trace_oom_score_adj_update(task);
> -
> -err_unlock:
> -	mutex_unlock(&oom_adj_mutex);
> -	put_task_struct(task);
> +	err = __set_oom_adj(file, oom_score_adj, false);
>  out:
>  	return err < 0 ? err : count;
>  }
> --
> 2.8.1
> 
> 


--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>