[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131204154027.GI8410@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:40:27 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
"Ma, Xindong" <xindong.ma@...el.com>,
Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>,
Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@...il.com>,
"Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] oom_kill: add rcu_read_lock() into
find_lock_task_mm()
On Wed 04-12-13 14:04:20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> find_lock_task_mm() expects it is called under rcu or tasklist lock,
> but it seems that at least oom_unkillable_task()->task_in_mem_cgroup()
> and mem_cgroup_out_of_memory()->oom_badness() can call it lockless.
>
> Perhaps we could fix the callers, but this patch simply adds rcu lock
> into find_lock_task_mm(). This also allows to simplify a bit one of its
> callers, oom_kill_process().
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Thanks!
> ---
> mm/oom_kill.c | 12 ++++++++----
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 0d8ad1e..054ff47 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -102,14 +102,19 @@ struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> struct task_struct *t;
>
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> for_each_thread(p, t) {
> task_lock(t);
> if (likely(t->mm))
> - return t;
> + goto found;
> task_unlock(t);
> }
> + t = NULL;
> +found:
> + rcu_read_unlock();
>
> - return NULL;
> + return t;
> }
>
> /* return true if the task is not adequate as candidate victim task. */
> @@ -461,10 +466,8 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> }
> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> p = find_lock_task_mm(victim);
> if (!p) {
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> put_task_struct(victim);
> return;
> } else if (victim != p) {
> @@ -490,6 +493,7 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> * That thread will now get access to memory reserves since it has a
> * pending fatal signal.
> */
> + rcu_read_lock();
> for_each_process(p)
> if (p->mm == mm && !same_thread_group(p, victim) &&
> !(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) {
> --
> 1.5.5.1
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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