[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48D31C59.7050404@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:28:25 -0700
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: righi.andrea@...il.com
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] memrlimit: fix task_lock() recursive locking (v2)
Andrea Righi wrote:
> Since we hold task_lock(), we know that p->mm cannot change and we don't have
> to worry about incrementing mm_users. So, just use p->mm directly and
> check that we've not picked a kernel thread.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/cgroup.c | 3 ++-
> mm/memrlimitcgroup.c | 10 ++++------
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> index 678a680..03cc925 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> @@ -2757,7 +2757,8 @@ void cgroup_fork_callbacks(struct task_struct *child)
> * invoke this routine, since it assigns the mm->owner the first time
> * and does not change it.
> *
> - * The callbacks are invoked with mmap_sem held in read mode.
> + * The callbacks are invoked with task_lock held and mmap_sem held in read
> + * mode.
> */
> void cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks(struct task_struct *old, struct task_struct *new)
> {
> diff --git a/mm/memrlimitcgroup.c b/mm/memrlimitcgroup.c
> index 8ee74f6..b3d20f5 100644
> --- a/mm/memrlimitcgroup.c
> +++ b/mm/memrlimitcgroup.c
> @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ out:
> }
>
> /*
> - * This callback is called with mmap_sem held
> + * This callback is called with mmap_sem and task_lock held
> */
> static void memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(struct cgroup_subsys *ss,
> struct cgroup *old_cgrp,
> @@ -246,9 +246,9 @@ static void memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(struct cgroup_subsys *ss,
> struct task_struct *p)
> {
> struct memrlimit_cgroup *memrcg, *old_memrcg;
> - struct mm_struct *mm = get_task_mm(p);
> + struct mm_struct *mm = p->mm;
>
> - BUG_ON(!mm);
> + BUG_ON(!mm || (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD));
>
> /*
> * If we don't have a new cgroup, we just uncharge from the old one.
> @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ static void memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(struct cgroup_subsys *ss,
> memrcg = memrlimit_cgroup_from_cgrp(cgrp);
> if (res_counter_charge(&memrcg->as_res,
> mm->total_vm << PAGE_SHIFT))
> - goto out;
> + return;
> }
>
> if (old_cgrp) {
> @@ -266,8 +266,6 @@ static void memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(struct cgroup_subsys *ss,
> res_counter_uncharge(&old_memrcg->as_res,
> mm->total_vm << PAGE_SHIFT);
> }
> -out:
> - mmput(mm);
> }
Seems reasonable
Acked-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
--
Balbir
--
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