[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830804021227od74be74j696105eae67bd22a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:27:38 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"Pavel Emelianov" <xemul@...nvz.org>,
"Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>,
"Sudhir Kumar" <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"YAMAMOTO Takashi" <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, taka@...inux.co.jp,
linux-mm@...ck.org, "David Rientjes" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v4)
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > +assign_new_owner:
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > + BUG_ON(c == p);
> > + task_lock(c);
> > + if (c->mm != mm) {
> > + task_unlock(c);
> > + goto retry;
> > + }
> > + cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks(mm->owner, c);
> > + mm->owner = c;
> > + task_unlock(c);
> > +}
> > Why rcu_read_unlock() before changing owner ? Is it safe ?
> >
>
> It should be safe, since we take task_lock(), but to be doubly sure, we can drop
> rcu read lock after taking the task_lock().
>
I agree with Kamezawa - the task can technically disappear as soon as
we leave the RCU critical section. (In practice, it'll only happen
with CONFIG_PREEMPT).
Paul
--
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