[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1181337147.21409.42.camel@farscape.rchland.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:12:26 -0500
From: Will Schmidt <will_schmidt@...t.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [PATCH i386] during VM oom condition, kill all
threads in process group
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:19:18 -0500
> Will Schmidt <will_schmidt@...t.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.
> >
> In fact, it's probably the case that rcu_read_lock() is now sufficient
> locking coverage for zap_other_threads() (cc's people).
>
> It had better be, because do_group_exit() forgot to take tasklist_lock. It
> is perhaps relying upon spin_lock()'s hidden rcu_read_lock() properties
> without so much as a code comment, which would be somewhat nasty of it.
> You could perhaps just call do_group_exit() from within the fault
> handler,
> btw.
Yup, so looks like I can actually replace the existing do_exit() call
with do_group_exit(). I'll sit on this for a bit to give other folks a
chance to comment on which lock call is sufficient, read_lock() or
rcu_read_lock(), etc; and do_group_exit()'s issue with taking
tasklist_lock.
Thanks,
-Will
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists