[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <509773035.243.1567950364367.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2019 09:46:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Russell King, ARM Linux" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Fix: sched/membarrier: p->mm->membarrier_state
racy load
----- On Sep 4, 2019, at 12:11 PM, Oleg Nesterov oleg@...hat.com wrote:
> with or without these changes...
>
> Why do membarrier_register_*_expedited() check get_nr_threads() == 1?
> This makes no sense to me, atomic_read(mm_users) == 1 should be enough.
>
>
> And I am not sure I understand membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode().
> OK, membarrier_private_expedited() can race with user -> kernel -> user
> transition, but we do not care unless both user's above have the same mm?
> Shouldn't membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode() do
>
> if (current->mm != mm)
> return;
>
> at the start to make it more clear and avoid sync_core_before_usermode()
> if possible?
I think I missed replying to your email. Indeed, you are right, I've added
2 cleanup patches taking care of this in my latest round.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists