From: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch for-3.2-rc3] cpusets: stall when updating mems_allowed for mempolicy or disjoint nodemask
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:52:42 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EC62AEA.2030602@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1111171328120.15918@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:33:14 -0800 (pst), David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Miao Xie wrote:
>
>> Oh~, David
>>
>> I find these is another problem, please take account of the following case:
>>
>> 2-3 -> 1-2 -> 0-1
>>
>> the user change mems_allowed twice continuously, the task may see the empty
>> mems_allowed.
>>
>> So, it is still dangerous.
>>
>
> With this patch, we're protected by task_lock(tsk) to determine whether we
> want to take the exception, i.e. whether need_loop is false, and the
> setting of tsk->mems_allowed. So this would see the nodemask change at
> the individual steps from 2-3 -> 1-2 -> 0-1, not some inconsistent state
> in between or directly from 2-3 -> 0-1. The only time we don't hold
> task_lock(tsk) to change tsk->mems_allowed is when tsk == current and in
> that case we're not concerned about intermediate reads to its own nodemask
> while storing to a mask where MAX_NUMNODES > BITS_PER_LONG.
>
> Thus, there's no problem here with regard to such behavior if we exclude
> mempolicies, which this patch does.
>
No.
When the task does memory allocation, it access its mems_allowed without
task_lock(tsk), and it may be blocked after it check 0-1 bits. And then, the
user changes mems_allowed twice continuously(2-3(initial state) -> 1-2 -> 0-1),
After that, the task is woke up and it see the empty mems_allowed.
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch for-3.2-rc3] cpusets: stall when updating mems_allowed for mempolicy or disjoint nodemask
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:52:42 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EC62AEA.2030602@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1111171328120.15918@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:33:14 -0800 (pst), David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Miao Xie wrote:
>
>> Oh~, David
>>
>> I find these is another problem, please take account of the following case:
>>
>> 2-3 -> 1-2 -> 0-1
>>
>> the user change mems_allowed twice continuously, the task may see the empty
>> mems_allowed.
>>
>> So, it is still dangerous.
>>
>
> With this patch, we're protected by task_lock(tsk) to determine whether we
> want to take the exception, i.e. whether need_loop is false, and the
> setting of tsk->mems_allowed. So this would see the nodemask change at
> the individual steps from 2-3 -> 1-2 -> 0-1, not some inconsistent state
> in between or directly from 2-3 -> 0-1. The only time we don't hold
> task_lock(tsk) to change tsk->mems_allowed is when tsk == current and in
> that case we're not concerned about intermediate reads to its own nodemask
> while storing to a mask where MAX_NUMNODES > BITS_PER_LONG.
>
> Thus, there's no problem here with regard to such behavior if we exclude
> mempolicies, which this patch does.
>
No.
When the task does memory allocation, it access its mems_allowed without
task_lock(tsk), and it may be blocked after it check 0-1 bits. And then, the
user changes mems_allowed twice continuously(2-3(initial state) -> 1-2 -> 0-1),
After that, the task is woke up and it see the empty mems_allowed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-18 9:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-16 21:08 [patch for-3.2-rc3] cpusets: stall when updating mems_allowed for mempolicy or disjoint nodemask David Rientjes
2011-11-16 21:08 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-17 8:29 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-17 8:29 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-17 21:33 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-17 21:33 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-18 9:52 ` Miao Xie [this message]
2011-11-18 9:52 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-18 23:49 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-18 23:49 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-23 2:51 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-23 2:51 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-23 3:32 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-23 3:32 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-23 4:48 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-23 4:48 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-23 6:25 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-23 6:25 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-23 7:49 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-23 7:49 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-23 22:26 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-23 22:26 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-24 1:26 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-24 1:26 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-24 1:52 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-24 1:52 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-24 2:50 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-24 2:50 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-17 22:22 ` Andrew Morton
2011-11-17 22:22 ` Andrew Morton
2011-11-17 23:08 ` [patch v2 " David Rientjes
2011-11-17 23:08 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-18 0:00 ` Andrew Morton
2011-11-18 0:00 ` Andrew Morton
2011-11-18 23:53 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-18 23:53 ` David Rientjes
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=4EC62AEA.2030602@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=miaox@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=paul@paulmenage.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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.