[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BEA47CA.2020508@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 14:16:42 +0800
From: Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpuset,mm: fix no node to alloc memory when changing
cpuset's mems
on 2010-5-12 9:49, Andrew Morton wrote:
...
>> --- a/kernel/exit.c
>> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>> #include <linux/key.h>
>> #include <linux/security.h>
>> #include <linux/cpu.h>
>> +#include <linux/cpuset.h>
>> #include <linux/acct.h>
>> #include <linux/tsacct_kern.h>
>> #include <linux/file.h>
>> @@ -1003,8 +1004,10 @@ NORET_TYPE void do_exit(long code)
>>
>> exit_notify(tsk, group_dead);
>> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
>> + task_lock(tsk);
>> mpol_put(tsk->mempolicy);
>> tsk->mempolicy = NULL;
>> + task_unlock(tsk);
>> #endif
>> #ifdef CONFIG_FUTEX
>> if (unlikely(current->pi_state_cache))
>
> Given that this function is already holding task_lock(tsk), this
> didn't work very well.
Sorry for replying late.
Thanks for your patch that removes task_lock(tsk).
I made this patch against the mainline tree, and do_exit() in the mainline tree
doesn't hold task_lock(tsk), so I took task_lock(tsk). But I didn't take notice
that do_exit() in the mmotm tree had been changed, and I made this mistake.
> Also, why was the inclusion of cpuset.h added? Nothing which this
> patch adds appears to need it?
>
This is my mistake, I will make patch to cleanup it.
Thanks!
Miao
--
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