All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
To: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"# 6 . 14 . x" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
	damon@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, JaeJoon Jung <rgbi3307@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/damon/core: remove call_control in inactive contexts
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 19:45:14 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251230034516.48129-1-sj@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251230024129.47591-1-sj@kernel.org>

On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 18:41:28 -0800 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 17:45:30 -0800 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 28 Dec 2025 10:31:01 -0800 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
[...]
> > I will send a new version of this fix soon.
> 
> So far, I got two fixup ideas.
> 
> The first one is keeping the current code as is, and additionally modifying
> kdamond_call() to protect all call_control object accesses under
> ctx->call_controls_lock protection.
> 
> The second one is reverting this patch, and doing the DAMON running status
> check before adding the damon_call_control object, but releasing the
> kdamond_lock after the object insertion is done.
> 
> I'm in favor of the second one at the moment, as it seems more simple.

I don't really like both approaches because those implicitly add locking rules.
If the first approach is taken, damon_call() callers should aware they should
not register callback functions that can hold call_controls_lock.  If the
second approach is taken, we should avoid holding kdamond_lock while holding
damon_call_control lock.  The second implicit rule seems easier to keep to me,
but I want to avoid that if possible.

The third idea I just got is, keeping this patch as is, and moving the final
kdamond_call() invocation to be made _before_ the ctx->kdamond reset.  That
removes the race condition between the final kdamond_call() and
damon_call_handle_inactive_ctx(), without introducing new locking rules.


Thanks,
SJ

[...]

  reply	other threads:[~2025-12-30  3:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-12-28 18:31 [PATCH] mm/damon/core: remove call_control in inactive contexts SeongJae Park
2025-12-30  1:45 ` SeongJae Park
2025-12-30  2:41   ` SeongJae Park
2025-12-30  3:45     ` SeongJae Park [this message]
2025-12-31  1:25       ` SeongJae Park
2025-12-31  5:27         ` JaeJoon Jung
2025-12-31 15:26           ` SeongJae Park
2026-01-01  0:55             ` JaeJoon Jung
2026-01-01  1:41               ` SeongJae Park
2026-01-01  2:58                 ` JaeJoon Jung

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20251230034516.48129-1-sj@kernel.org \
    --to=sj@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=damon@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=rgbi3307@gmail.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.