[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160524161336.GA11150@esperanza>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 19:13:36 +0300
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 7/8] pipe: account to kmemcg
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 05:59:02AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
...
> > +static int anon_pipe_buf_steal(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
> > + struct pipe_buffer *buf)
> > +{
> > + struct page *page = buf->page;
> > +
> > + if (page_count(page) == 1) {
>
> This looks racy : some cpu could have temporarily elevated page count.
All pipe operations (pipe_buf_operations->get, ->release, ->steal) are
supposed to be called under pipe_lock. So, if we see a pipe_buffer->page
with refcount of 1 in ->steal, that means that we are the only its user
and it can't be spliced to another pipe.
In fact, I just copied the code from generic_pipe_buf_steal, adding
kmemcg related checks along the way, so it should be fine.
Thanks,
Vladimir
>
> > + if (memcg_kmem_enabled()) {
> > + memcg_kmem_uncharge(page, 0);
> > + __ClearPageKmemcg(page);
> > + }
> > + __SetPageLocked(page);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > + return 1;
> > +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists