[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090622115148.5f1e5d1b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:51:48 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, jmorris@...ei.org, roland@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rework/fix is_single_threaded()
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:42:38 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 06/18, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > It appears that this patch is rather stuck. Should I drop it?
>
> Well, I am biased of course...
>
> I think the patch is correct. David dislikes down_write(->mmap_sem),
> but imho it is better than the global tasklist_lock.
>
> Looks like we can avoid ->mmap_sem too, but imho this change needs
> another patch, it is subtle.
>
> OTOH, I can't say this patch is important, both the fixed bugs and
> improvements are minor.
>
hm, that's still all a bit marginal/waffly.
>
> > From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> >
> > - Fix the comment, is_single_threaded(p) actually means that nobody shares
> > ->mm with p.
> >
> > I think this helper should be renamed, and it should not have arguments.
> > With or without this patch it must not be used unless p == current,
> > otherwise we can't safely use p->signal or p->mm.
> >
> > - "if (atomic_read(&p->signal->count) != 1)" is not right when we have a
> > zombie group leader, use signal->live instead.
> >
> > - Add PF_KTHREAD check to skip kernel threads which may borrow p->mm,
> > otherwise we can return the wrong "false".
> >
> > - Use for_each_process() instead of do_each_thread(), all threads must use
> > the same ->mm.
> >
> > - Use down_write(mm->mmap_sem) + rcu_read_lock() instead of tasklist_lock
> > to iterate over the process list. If there is another CLONE_VM process
> > it can't pass exit_mm() which takes the same mm->mmap_sem. We can miss
> > a freshly forked CLONE_VM task, but this doesn't matter because we must
> > see its parent and return false.
Maybe we should do the locking change in a separate and subsequent
patch?
--
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