[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140309170909.GA13335@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 18:09:09 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davi@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: per-thread vma caching
On 03/09, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > No, dup_task_struct() is obviously lockless. And the new child is not yet
> > visible to for_each_process_thread().
>
> Ok, then the siimple approach is to just do
>
> /* Did we miss an invalidate event? *
> if (mm->seqcount < tsk->seqcount)
> clear_vma_cache();
>
> after making the new thread visible.
>
> Then the "race" becomes one of "we cannot have 4 billion mmap/munmap
> events in other threads while we're setting up a new thread",
But it's not the "while we're setting up a new thread", it is "since
vmacache_valid() was called list time". And the cloning task can just
sleep(A_LOT) and then do CLONE_VM.
Of course, of course, this race is pute theoretical anyway. But imho
makes sense to fix anyway, and the natural/trivial approach is just to
move vmacache_flush(tsk) from dup_mm() to copy_mm(), right after the
"if (!oldmm)" check.
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