[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150613072635.GA30388@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 09:26:35 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: 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
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > So we could add tsk->mm_leader or so,
>
> No, no, please do not. Just do something like
>
> for_each_process(p) {
>
> for_each_thread(p, t) {
So far that's what the for_each_process_thread() iterations I added do, right?
> 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().
That's indeed a bug: I'll add task_lock()/unlock() before looking at ->mm.
find_lock_task_mm() is not needed IMHO: we have a stable reference to 't', as a
task can only go away via RCU expiry, and all the iterations I added are (supposed
to) be RCU safe.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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