[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20141003213318.729698290@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 14:35:37 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@...il.com>,
Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
"Ma, Xindong" <xindong.ma@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
"Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@...el.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.10 142/143] oom_kill: add rcu_read_lock() into find_lock_task_mm()
3.10-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
commit 4d4048be8a93769350efa31d2482a038b7de73d0 upstream.
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>
Cc: Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@...il.com>
Cc: Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Cc: "Ma, Xindong" <xindong.ma@...el.com>
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: "Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@...el.com>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
mm/oom_kill.c | 12 ++++++++----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -102,14 +102,19 @@ struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(st
{
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
}
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
* 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)) {
--
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