[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FB4D061.10406@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 19:18:09 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, devel@...nvz.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time
(2012/05/17 18:52), Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 05/17/2012 09:37 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> If that happens, locking in static_key_slow_inc will prevent any damage.
>>>> My previous version had explicit code to prevent that, but we were
>>>> pointed out that this is already part of the static_key expectations, so
>>>> that was dropped.
>> This makes no sense. If two threads run that code concurrently,
>> key->enabled gets incremented twice. Nobody anywhere has a record that
>> this happened so it cannot be undone. key->enabled is now in an
>> unknown state.
>
> Kame, Tejun,
>
> Andrew is right. It seems we will need that mutex after all. Just this
> is not a race, and neither something that should belong in the
> static_branch interface.
>
Hmm....how about having
res_counter_xchg_limit(res, &old_limit, new_limit);
if (!cg_proto->updated && old_limit == RESOURCE_MAX)
....update labels...
Then, no mutex overhead maybe and activated will be updated only once.
Ah, but please fix in a way you like. Above is an example.
Thanks,
-Kame
(*) I'm sorry I won't be able to read e-mails, tomorrow.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists