[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120202125441.GA32229@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:54:41 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
San Mehat <san@...gle.com>, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: android/lowmemorykiller: Don't grab
tasklist_lock
On 02/01, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>
> @@ -132,7 +133,7 @@ static int lowmem_shrink(struct shrinker *s, struct shrink_control *sc)
> }
> selected_oom_adj = min_adj;
>
> - read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> + rcu_read_lock();
This has the same problem, force_sig() becomes unsafe.
Why do you need force_? Do you really want to kill /sbin/init (or sub-namespace
init) ?
We could change force_sig_info() to use lock_task_sighand(), but I'd like to
avoid this. Imho, this interface should be cleanuped, and it should be used
for synchronous signals only.
With or without this patch, sig == NULL is not possible but !mm is not right,
there could be other other threads with mm != NULL.
Oleg.
--
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