mm/oom_kill: cleanup the "kill sharing same memory" loop

Purely cosmetic, but the complex "if" condition looks annoying to me.
Especially because it is not consistent with OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN check
which adds another if/continue.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: Kyle Walker <kwalker@redhat.com>
Cc: Stanislav Kozina <skozina@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
Oleg Nesterov 2015-11-05 18:48:23 -08:00 committed by Linus Torvalds
parent 0c1b2d783c
commit c319025a6c

View File

@ -574,14 +574,18 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *p,
* pending fatal signal.
*/
rcu_read_lock();
for_each_process(p)
if (p->mm == mm && !same_thread_group(p, victim) &&
!(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) {
if (p->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN)
continue;
for_each_process(p) {
if (p->mm != mm)
continue;
if (same_thread_group(p, victim))
continue;
if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
continue;
if (p->signal->oom_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN)
continue;
do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true);
}
do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true);
}
rcu_read_unlock();
mmdrop(mm);