From d66f94e4544581cba1bb80bdfb720aedde0fcb86 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Johannes Weiner Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:57:13 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] mm: oom_kill: generalize OOM progress waitqueue 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 Acked-by: Michal Hocko Acked-by: David Rientjes Cc: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Vlastimil Babka Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- mm/oom_kill.c | 6 +----- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c index 4b9547be91700..472f124e5f083 100644 --- a/mm/oom_kill.c +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c @@ -438,11 +438,7 @@ void exit_oom_victim(void) clear_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE); down_read(&oom_sem); - /* - * There is no need to signal the lasst oom_victim if there - * is nobody who cares. - */ - if (!atomic_dec_return(&oom_victims) && oom_killer_disabled) + if (!atomic_dec_return(&oom_victims)) wake_up_all(&oom_victims_wait); up_read(&oom_sem); } -- 2.39.5