linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>, Chuck Lever <cel@citi.umich.edu>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	stable@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v7] wait: prevent exclusive waiter starvation
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:31:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090129083108.GA27495@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090128233734.81d8004a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On 01/28, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:42:27 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 01/28, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > >
> > > Add abort_exclusive_wait() which removes the process' wait descriptor
> > > from the waitqueue, iff still queued, or wakes up the next waiter
> > > otherwise.  It does so under the waitqueue lock.  Racing with a wake
> > > up means the aborting process is either already woken (removed from
> > > the queue) and will wake up the next waiter, or it will remove itself
> > > from the queue and the concurrent wake up will apply to the next
> > > waiter after it.
> > >
> > > Use abort_exclusive_wait() in __wait_event_interruptible_exclusive()
> > > and __wait_on_bit_lock() when they were interrupted by other means
> > > than a wake up through the queue.
> >
> > Imho, this all is right, and this patch should replace
> > lock_page_killable-avoid-lost-wakeups.patch (except for stable tree).
>
> I dropped lock_page_killable-avoid-lost-wakeups.patch a while ago.
>
> So I think we're saying that
> lock_page_killable-avoid-lost-wakeups.patch actually did fix the bug?

I think yes,

> And that "[RFC v7] wait: prevent exclusive waiter starvation" fixes it
> as well, and in a preferable manner, but not a manner which we consider
> suitable for -stable?  (why?)

I meant that lock_page_killable-avoid-lost-wakeups.patch is much simpler,
and thus it looks more "safe" for -stable.

But it is not optimal, and Johannes's patch is also more generic, it fixes
wait_event_interruptible_exclusive() as well.

> And hence that lock_page_killable-avoid-lost-wakeups.patch is the
> appropriate fix for -stable?
>
> If so, that's a bit unusual, and the -stable maintainers may choose to
> take the patch which we're putting into 2.6.29.

Well, I don't know ;)

But Johannes's looks good to me, if you already dropped the old patch,
then I think this one can go into -stable after some testing. Hopefully
maintainers can review it.

Oleg.

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2009-01-29  8:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20090117215110.GA3300@redhat.com>
2009-01-18  1:38 ` [PATCH v3] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock Johannes Weiner
2009-01-18  2:32   ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-20 20:31     ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-21 14:36       ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-21 21:38         ` [RFC v4] " Johannes Weiner
2009-01-22 20:25           ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23  0:26             ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23  0:47               ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 10:07                 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23 11:05                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 12:36                     ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23  9:59             ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-23 11:35               ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 13:30                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-26 21:59                   ` [RFC v5] wait: prevent exclusive waiter starvation Johannes Weiner
2009-01-27  3:23                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27 19:34                       ` [RFC v6] " Johannes Weiner
2009-01-27 20:05                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27 22:31                           ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-28  9:14                           ` [RFC v7] " Johannes Weiner
2009-01-29  4:42                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-29  7:37                               ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29  8:31                                 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2009-01-29  9:11                                   ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29 14:34                                     ` Chris Mason
2009-02-02 15:47                                       ` Chris Mason
2009-01-23 19:24                 ` [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock Johannes Weiner

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=20090129083108.GA27495@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cel@citi.umich.edu \
    --cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=matthew@wil.cx \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=stable@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 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).