[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B84F645.6030404@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:49:57 +0800
From: Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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 2010-2-23 16:44, David Rientjes wrote:
> 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.
>
By investigating, we found that it is hard to guarantee the consistent between
mempolicy and mems_allowed because mempolicy was designed as a self-update function.
it just can be changed by one's self. Maybe we must change the implement of mempolicy.
--
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