[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090917151016.99f7c5ab.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:10:16 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/3][mmotm] showing size of kcore v2
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:02:39 +0800
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> > @@ -124,6 +126,7 @@ static void __kcore_update_ram(struct li
> > write_unlock(&kclist_lock);
> >
> > free_kclist_ents(&garbage);
> > + proc_root_kcore->size = get_kcore_size(&nphdr, &size);
>
>
> This makes me to think if we will have some race condition here?
> Two processes can open kcore at the same time...
>
Finally,
==
static void __kcore_update_ram(struct list_head *list)
{
write_lock(&kclist_lock);
if (kcore_need_update) {
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, tmp, &kclist_head, list) {
if (pos->type == KCORE_RAM
|| pos->type == KCORE_VMEMMAP)
list_move(&pos->list, &garbage);
}
list_splice_tail(list, &kclist_head);
} else
list_splice(list, &garbage);
kcore_need_update = 0;
write_unlock(&kclist_lock);
}
kclist itself is double checked under write_lock.
And, once updated, get_kcore_size()'s return vaule is static.
So, I think there are no race. But..Hmm...is this clearer ?
==
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Now, size of /proc/kcore which can be read by 'ls -l' is 0.
But it's not correct value.
This is a patch for showing size of /proc/kcore as following.
On x86-64, ls -l shows
... root root 140737486266368 2009-09-17 10:29 /proc/kcore
Then, 7FFFFFFE02000. This comes from vmalloc area's size.
This shows "core" size, not memory size.
This patch shows the size by updating "size" field in struct proc_dir_entry.
Later, lookup routine will create inode and fill inode->i_size based
on this value. Then, this has a problem.
- Once inode is cached, inode->i_size will never be updated.
Then, this patch is not memory-hotplug-aware.
To update inode->i_size, we have to know dentry or inode.
But there is no way to lookup them by inside kernel. Hmmm....
Next patch will try it.
Changelog:
-moved upadting ->size under lock.
Cc: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
---
fs/proc/kcore.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: mmotm-2.6.31-Sep14/fs/proc/kcore.c
===================================================================
--- mmotm-2.6.31-Sep14.orig/fs/proc/kcore.c
+++ mmotm-2.6.31-Sep14/fs/proc/kcore.c
@@ -107,6 +107,8 @@ static void free_kclist_ents(struct list
*/
static void __kcore_update_ram(struct list_head *list)
{
+ int nphdr;
+ size_t size;
struct kcore_list *tmp, *pos;
LIST_HEAD(garbage);
@@ -121,6 +123,7 @@ static void __kcore_update_ram(struct li
} else
list_splice(list, &garbage);
kcore_need_update = 0;
+ proc_root_kcore->size = get_kcore_size(&nphdr, &size);
write_unlock(&kclist_lock);
free_kclist_ents(&garbage);
@@ -429,7 +432,8 @@ read_kcore(struct file *file, char __use
unsigned long start;
read_lock(&kclist_lock);
- proc_root_kcore->size = size = get_kcore_size(&nphdr, &elf_buflen);
+ size = get_kcore_size(&nphdr, &elf_buflen);
+
if (buflen == 0 || *fpos >= size) {
read_unlock(&kclist_lock);
return 0;
--
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