[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22ebd655-ece4-37e5-5a98-e9750cb20665@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:21:26 +0530
From: "Kohli, Gaurav" <gkohli@...eaurora.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: oom: Fix race condition between oom_badness and
do_exit of task
On 3/8/2018 2:26 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Gaurav Kohli wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
>> index 6fd9773..5f4cc4b 100644
>> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
>> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
>> @@ -114,9 +114,11 @@ struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(struct task_struct *p)
>>
>> for_each_thread(p, t) {
>> task_lock(t);
>> + get_task_struct(t);
>> if (likely(t->mm))
>> goto found;
>> task_unlock(t);
>> + put_task_struct(t);
>> }
>> t = NULL;
>> found:
> We hold rcu_read_lock() here, so perhaps only do get_task_struct() before
> doing rcu_read_unlock() and we have a non-NULL t?
Here rcu_read_lock will not help, as our task may change due to below algo:
for_each_thread(p, t) {
task_lock(t);
+ get_task_struct(t);
if (likely(t->mm))
goto found;
task_unlock(t);
+ put_task_struct(t)
So only we can increase usage counter here only at the current task.
I have seen you new patch, that seems valid to me and it will resolve our issue.
Thanks for support.
Regards
Gaurav
>
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists