[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303950728.2971.35.camel@work-vm>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:32:08 -0700
From: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] break out page allocation warning code
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 16:51 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, john stultz wrote:
> > In the meantime, I'll put some effort into trying to protect unlocked
> > current->comm acccess using get_task_comm() where possible. Won't happen
> > in a day, and help would be appreciated.
> >
>
> We need to stop protecting ->comm with ->alloc_lock since it is used for
> other members of task_struct that may or may not be held in a function
> that wants to read ->comm. We should probably introduce a seqlock.
Agreed. My initial approach is to consolidate accesses to use
get_task_comm(), with special case to skip the locking if tsk==current,
as well as a lock free __get_task_comm() for cases where its not current
being accessed and the task locking is already done.
Once that's all done, the next step is to switch to a seqlock (or
possibly RCU if Dave is still playing with that idea), internally in the
get_task_comm implementation and then yank the special __get_task_comm.
But other suggestions are welcome.
thanks
-john
--
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