[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:39:48 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: apw@...onical.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, fhrbata@...hat.com,
john.johansen@...onical.com, penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp,
rientjes@...gle.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, tj@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] vfork: make it killable
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:27:06 +0100
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -669,10 +669,34 @@ struct mm_struct *mm_access(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode)
>
> void complete_vfork_done(struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> - struct completion *vfork_done = tsk->vfork_done;
> + struct completion *vfork;
>
> - tsk->vfork_done = NULL;
> - complete(vfork_done);
> + task_lock(tsk);
> + vfork = tsk->vfork_done;
> + if (likely(vfork)) {
> + tsk->vfork_done = NULL;
> + complete(vfork);
> + }
> + task_unlock(tsk);
> +}
OK, so now we don't need to test tsk->vfork_done in callers. But
mm_release() still does this, and it does it outside locks. Mistake,
or micro-optimisation? If the latter, why is the lockless peek
race-free?
--
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