From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756598AbYIRSsl (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:48:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754946AbYIRSsc (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:48:32 -0400 Received: from E23SMTP03.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.172]:34619 "EHLO e23smtp03.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754236AbYIRSsb (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:48:31 -0400 Message-ID: <48D2A21E.7050806@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:46:54 -0700 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Organization: IBM User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080725) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: righi.andrea@gmail.com CC: Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Paul Menage , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] memrlimit: fix task_lock() recursive locking References: <48D29485.5010900@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <48D29485.5010900@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrea Righi wrote: > cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks() can be called with task_lock() held in > mm_update_next_owner(), and all the .mm_owner_changed callbacks seem to > be *always* called with task_lock() held. > > Actually, memrlimit is using task_lock() via get_task_mm() in > memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(), raising the following recursive locking > trace: [snip] Thanks for the BUG report() [snip] > static void memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, > struct cgroup *old_cgrp, > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static void memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, > struct task_struct *p) > { > struct memrlimit_cgroup *memrcg, *old_memrcg; > - struct mm_struct *mm = get_task_mm(p); > + struct mm_struct *mm = get_task_mm_task_locked(p); > Since we hold task_lock(), we know that p->mm cannot change and we don't have to worry about incrementing mm_users. I think using just p->mm will work, we do have checks to make sure we don't pick a kernel thread. I vote for going down that road. -- Balbir From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sd0109e.au.ibm.com (d23rh905.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.225]) by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m8IIm8TW017185 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:48:08 +1000 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by sd0109e.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m8IIlsil188422 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:47:54 +1000 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m8IIlsld017312 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:47:54 +1000 Message-ID: <48D2A21E.7050806@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:46:54 -0700 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] memrlimit: fix task_lock() recursive locking References: <48D29485.5010900@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <48D29485.5010900@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: righi.andrea@gmail.com Cc: Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Paul Menage , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML List-ID: Andrea Righi wrote: > cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks() can be called with task_lock() held in > mm_update_next_owner(), and all the .mm_owner_changed callbacks seem to > be *always* called with task_lock() held. > > Actually, memrlimit is using task_lock() via get_task_mm() in > memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(), raising the following recursive locking > trace: [snip] Thanks for the BUG report() [snip] > static void memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, > struct cgroup *old_cgrp, > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static void memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, > struct task_struct *p) > { > struct memrlimit_cgroup *memrcg, *old_memrcg; > - struct mm_struct *mm = get_task_mm(p); > + struct mm_struct *mm = get_task_mm_task_locked(p); > Since we hold task_lock(), we know that p->mm cannot change and we don't have to worry about incrementing mm_users. I think using just p->mm will work, we do have checks to make sure we don't pick a kernel thread. I vote for going down that road. -- Balbir -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org