[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1002230041240.12015@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:44:02 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: [regression] cpuset,mm: update tasks' mems_allowed in time
(58568d2)
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Miao Xie wrote:
> Sorry, Could you explain what you advised?
> I think it is hard to fix this problem by adding a variant, because it is
> hard to avoid loading a word of the mask before
>
> nodes_or(tsk->mems_allowed, tsk->mems_allowed, *newmems);
>
> and then loading another word of the mask after
>
> tsk->mems_allowed = *newmems;
>
> unless we use lock.
>
> Maybe we need a rw-lock to protect task->mems_allowed.
>
I meant that we need to define synchronization only for configurations
that do not do atomic nodemask_t stores, it's otherwise unnecessary.
We'll need to load and store tsk->mems_allowed via a helper function that
is defined to take the rwlock for such configs and only read/write the
nodemask for others.
--
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