[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150612233620.GA26205@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 01:36:21 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
linux-mml@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] x86/virt/guest/xen: Remove use of pgd_list from
the Xen guest code
On 06/12, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
> On 06/12/2015 04:53 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>
>>> for_each_process(p) {
>>>
>>> for_each_thread(p, t) {
>>> if (t->mm) {
>>> do_something(t->mm);
>>> break;
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> But either way I don't understand what protects this ->mm. Perhaps this needs
>>> find_lock_task_mm().
>>
>> And, I don't understand this code, probably this doesn't matter, but.
>>
>> unpin_all() is probably fine, but xen_mm_pin_all() can race with fork()
>> and miss the new child. Is it OK?
>
>
> Currently xen_mm_pin_all() is only called in the suspend path, out of
> stop_machine(), so presumably at that time fork is not possible.
OK, thanks, this also means that this code shouldn't worry about ->mm,
it should be stable.
But for_each_process() in sync_global_pgds() should, afaics.
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