[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1111171328120.15918@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:33:14 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch for-3.2-rc3] cpusets: stall when updating mems_allowed
for mempolicy or disjoint nodemask
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Miao Xie wrote:
> Oh~, David
>
> I find these is another problem, please take account of the following case:
>
> 2-3 -> 1-2 -> 0-1
>
> the user change mems_allowed twice continuously, the task may see the empty
> mems_allowed.
>
> So, it is still dangerous.
>
With this patch, we're protected by task_lock(tsk) to determine whether we
want to take the exception, i.e. whether need_loop is false, and the
setting of tsk->mems_allowed. So this would see the nodemask change at
the individual steps from 2-3 -> 1-2 -> 0-1, not some inconsistent state
in between or directly from 2-3 -> 0-1. The only time we don't hold
task_lock(tsk) to change tsk->mems_allowed is when tsk == current and in
that case we're not concerned about intermediate reads to its own nodemask
while storing to a mask where MAX_NUMNODES > BITS_PER_LONG.
Thus, there's no problem here with regard to such behavior if we exclude
mempolicies, which this patch does.
--
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