linux-kernel - [patch] mm, memcg: don't take task_lock in task_in_mem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1305030948180.30223@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Fri, 3 May 2013 09:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: [patch] mm, memcg: don't take task_lock in task_in_mem_cgroup

For processes that have detached their mm's, task_in_mem_cgroup()
unnecessarily takes task_lock() when rcu_read_lock() is all that is
necessary to call mem_cgroup_from_task().

While we're here, switch task_in_mem_cgroup() to return bool.

Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
---
 include/linux/memcontrol.h |  9 +++++----
 mm/memcontrol.c            | 11 ++++++-----
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -77,7 +77,8 @@ extern void mem_cgroup_uncharge_cache_page(struct page *page);
 
 bool __mem_cgroup_same_or_subtree(const struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
 				  struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
-int task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task, const struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
+bool task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task,
+			const struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
 
 extern struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page);
 extern struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_task(struct task_struct *p);
@@ -273,10 +274,10 @@ static inline bool mm_match_cgroup(struct mm_struct *mm,
 	return true;
 }
 
-static inline int task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task,
-				     const struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+static inline bool task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task,
+				      const struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
 {
-	return 1;
+	return true;
 }
 
 static inline struct cgroup_subsys_state
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1443,11 +1443,12 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_same_or_subtree(const struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
 	return ret;
 }
 
-int task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task, const struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+bool task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task,
+			const struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
 {
-	int ret;
 	struct mem_cgroup *curr = NULL;
 	struct task_struct *p;
+	bool ret;
 
 	p = find_lock_task_mm(task);
 	if (p) {
@@ -1459,14 +1460,14 @@ int task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task, const struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
 		 * killer still needs to detect if they have already been oom
 		 * killed to prevent needlessly killing additional tasks.
 		 */
-		task_lock(task);
+		rcu_read_lock();
 		curr = mem_cgroup_from_task(task);
 		if (curr)
 			css_get(&curr->css);
-		task_unlock(task);
+		rcu_read_unlock();
 	}
 	if (!curr)
-		return 0;
+		return false;
 	/*
 	 * We should check use_hierarchy of "memcg" not "curr". Because checking
 	 * use_hierarchy of "curr" here make this function true if hierarchy is
--
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/