[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100824173839.d8285b85.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:38:39 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org,
"nishimura\@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"balbir\@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com,
"akpm\@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kamezawa.hiroyuki@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: use ID in page_cgroup
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 01:35:37 -0700
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com> wrote:
> > rcu_read_lock() is just for delaying to discard object, not for avoiding
> > racy updates. All _updates_ requires proper lock or speculative logic as
> > atomic_inc_not_zero() etc... Basically, RCU is for avoiding use-after-free.
>
>
> Thanks for the info. Referring to your original patch:
> > @@ -2014,11 +2025,11 @@ static int mem_cgroup_move_account(struc
> > {
> > int ret = -EINVAL;
> > lock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > - if (PageCgroupUsed(pc) && pc->mem_cgroup == from) {
> > + if (PageCgroupUsed(pc) && id_to_memcg(pc->mem_cgroup, true) == from) {
> > __mem_cgroup_move_account(pc, from, to, uncharge);
> > ret = 0;
> > }
> > - unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> >
>
> It seems like mem_cgroup_move_account() is not balanced. Why is
> lock_page_cgroup(pc) used to lock but rcu_read_unlock() used to unlock?
>
Nice catch. It's bug. It seems my eyes were corrupted..
Will be fixed in the next version. Sorry for bad code.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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