This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0
- From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki dot motohiro at jp dot fujitsu dot com>
- To: Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation dot org>
- Cc: kosaki dot motohiro at jp dot fujitsu dot com, Justin Mattock <justinmattock at gmail dot com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, David Rientjes <rientjes at cs dot washington dot edu>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:20:24 +0900 (JST)
- Subject: Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0
- References: <20091104182238.54CB.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091104072826.8b2dfb73.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > + if (verbose) {
> > + task_lock(p);
>
> We need to be careful with which locks we take on the oom-killer path,
> because it can be called by code which already holds locks. But I
> expect task_lock() will be OK.
Sure.
task_lock() is already used various oom path. I think this is ok.