[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200820140451.GC4546@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:04:52 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
christian.brauner@...ntu.com, mingo@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, esyr@...hat.com,
christian@...lner.me, areber@...hat.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
cyphar@...har.com, adobriyan@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
gladkov.alexey@...il.com, walken@...gle.com,
daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com, avagin@...il.com,
bernd.edlinger@...mail.de, john.johansen@...onical.com,
laoar.shao@...il.com, timmurray@...gle.com, minchan@...nel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm, oom_adj: don't loop through tasks in
__set_oom_adj when not necessary
On 08/20, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -1139,6 +1139,10 @@ static int exec_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> vmacache_flush(tsk);
> task_unlock(tsk);
> if (old_mm) {
> + mm->oom_score_adj = old_mm->oom_score_adj;
> + mm->oom_score_adj_min = old_mm->oom_score_adj_min;
> + if (tsk->vfork_done)
> + mm->oom_score_adj = tsk->vfork_oom_score_adj;
too late, ->vfork_done is NULL after mm_release().
And this can race with __set_oom_adj(). Yes, the current code is racy too,
but this change adds another race, __set_oom_adj() could already observe
->mm != NULL and update mm->oom_score_adj.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists