From: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] break out page allocation warning code
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:04:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1304035495.2971.169.camel@work-vm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1304034500.2971.160.camel@work-vm>
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 16:48 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 15:48 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, john stultz wrote:
> >
> > > So thinking further, this can be simplified by adding the seqlock first,
> > > and then retaining the task_locking only in the set_task_comm path until
> > > all comm accessors are converted to using get_task_comm.
> > >
> >
> > On second thought, I think it would be better to just retain using a
> > spinlock but instead of using alloc_lock, introduce a new spinlock to
> > task_struct for the sole purpose of protecting comm.
> >
> > And, instead, of using get_task_comm() to write into a preallocated
> > buffer, I think it would be easier in the vast majority of cases that
> > you'll need to convert to just provide task_comm_lock(p) and
> > task_comm_unlock(p) so that p->comm can be dereferenced safely.
Ok.. trying to find a middle ground here by replying to my own
concerns. :)
> So my concern with this is that it means one more lock that could be
> mis-nested. By keeping the locking isolated to the get/set_task_comm, we
> can be sure that won't happen.
>
> Also tracking new current->comm references will be easier if we just
> don't allow new ones. Validating that all the comm references are
> correctly locked becomes more difficult if we need locking at each use
> site.
So maybe we still ban current->comm access and instead have a
lightweight get_comm_locked() accessor or something that. Then we can
add debugging options to validate that the lock is properly held
internally.
> Further, since I'm not convinced that we never reference current->comm
> from irq context, if we go with spinlocks, we're going to have to
> disable irqs in the read path as well. seqlocks were nice for that
> aspect.
rwlocks can resolve this concern.
Any other thoughts?
-john
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-29 0:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-15 17:04 [PATCH 1/2] break out page allocation warning code Dave Hansen
2011-04-15 17:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] print vmalloc() state after allocation failures Dave Hansen
2011-04-15 17:20 ` Michal Nazarewicz
2011-04-15 17:44 ` Dave Hansen
2011-04-17 0:03 ` David Rientjes
2011-04-18 15:21 ` Dave Hansen
2011-04-17 0:02 ` [PATCH 1/2] break out page allocation warning code David Rientjes
2011-04-18 15:10 ` Dave Hansen
2011-04-18 20:25 ` David Rientjes
2011-04-18 20:57 ` Dave Hansen
2011-04-19 21:23 ` David Rientjes
2011-04-18 21:03 ` Dave Hansen
2011-04-18 21:22 ` Dave Hansen
2011-04-19 0:44 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-04-19 21:21 ` David Rientjes
2011-04-20 0:39 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-04-20 20:24 ` David Rientjes
2011-04-20 20:34 ` john stultz
2011-04-21 1:29 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-04-25 4:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-04-26 19:27 ` john stultz
2011-04-27 23:51 ` David Rientjes
2011-04-28 0:32 ` john stultz
2011-04-28 1:29 ` john stultz
2011-04-28 22:48 ` David Rientjes
2011-04-28 23:48 ` john stultz
2011-04-29 0:04 ` john stultz [this message]
2011-04-26 21:25 ` john stultz
2011-04-28 3:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-04-20 1:41 ` Dave Hansen
2011-04-20 1:50 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-04-20 2:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-04-20 2:46 ` Dave Hansen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-04-19 16:21 Dave Hansen
2011-04-08 20:22 Dave Hansen
2011-04-08 20:37 ` David Rientjes
2011-04-08 20:43 ` Dave Hansen
2011-04-08 20:54 ` Michał Nazarewicz
2011-04-08 21:02 ` Dave Hansen
2011-04-11 10:20 ` Michal Nazarewicz
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=1304035495.2971.169.camel@work-vm \
--to=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mina86@mina86.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).