From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx137.postini.com [74.125.245.137]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B6CC26B0072 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 09:43:09 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: [patch,v2] bdi: add a user-tunable cpu_list for the bdi flusher threads References: <20121204023405.GE32450@dastard> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 09:42:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20121204023405.GE32450@dastard> (Dave Chinner's message of "Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:34:05 +1100") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dave Chinner Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Zach Brown Dave Chinner writes: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 01:53:39PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> +static ssize_t cpu_list_store(struct device *dev, >> + struct device_attribute *attr, const char *buf, size_t count) >> +{ >> + struct backing_dev_info *bdi = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >> + struct bdi_writeback *wb = &bdi->wb; >> + cpumask_var_t newmask; >> + ssize_t ret; >> + struct task_struct *task; >> + >> + if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&newmask, GFP_KERNEL)) >> + return -ENOMEM; >> + >> + ret = cpulist_parse(buf, newmask); >> + if (!ret) { >> + spin_lock(&bdi->wb_lock); >> + task = wb->task; >> + if (task) >> + get_task_struct(task); >> + spin_unlock(&bdi->wb_lock); >> + if (task) { >> + ret = set_cpus_allowed_ptr(task, newmask); >> + put_task_struct(task); >> + } > > Why is this set here outside the bdi->flusher_cpumask_mutex? The cpumask mutex protects updates to bdi->flusher_cpumask, it has nothing to do with the call to set_cpus_allowed. We are protected from concurrent calls to cpu_list_store by the sysfs mutex that is taken on entry. I understand that this is non-obvious, and it wouldn't be wrong to hold the mutex here. If you'd like me to do that for clarity, that would be ok with me. > Also, I'd prefer it named "..._lock" as that is the normal > convention for such variables. You can tell the type of lock from > the declaration or the use... I'm sure I can find counter-examples, but it doesn't really matter to me. I'll change it. >> @@ -437,6 +488,14 @@ static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr) >> spin_lock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock); >> bdi->wb.task = task; >> spin_unlock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock); >> + mutex_lock(&bdi->flusher_cpumask_mutex); >> + ret = set_cpus_allowed_ptr(task, >> + bdi->flusher_cpumask); >> + mutex_unlock(&bdi->flusher_cpumask_mutex); > > As it is set under the lock here.... It's done under the lock here since we need to keep bdi->flusher_cpumask from changing during the call to set_cpus_allowed. Cheers, Jeff -- 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