public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
Cc: chrisw@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, Simon.Derr@bull.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org,
	stable@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13-stable] cpuset semaphore double trip fix
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 20:20:30 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050909202030.541049a7.pj@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050910030127.GE7762@shell0.pdx.osdl.net>

Chris wrote:
> Another 'by inspection' patch, perhaps we'll need to update the stable
> rules, since these can be quite valid fixes, yet typically trigger
> review replies asking if it's necessary for -stable.

I'm scratching my head here, trying to figure out what is the
bottom line of this comment.

I'm guessing you're saying:

	"By inspection" patches, unless they have something further
	to recommend their inclusion, are not candidates for -stable.

But intent of your phrase "yet typically trigger review replies ..."
went right past me ...


> How unlikely?  So unlikely that it's more a theoreitical race, or did
> you find ways to trigger? 

I don't have a way to trigger it.  My guess is that someday, some
customer will find the right combination of calls, and be able to
trigger this once every few hours or days.  The odds are quite good
that 2.6.13.* will live out its life before that happens.  When it
happens, it will be a customer doing some serious cpuset manipulations
on serious big iron.


> Is this one well-tested, since the fix diverges from upstream?

Yes - I have a stress test, and some custom kernel tracing, that
could see the conditions needed to trigger this occurring, just not
all simultaneously in the necessary small window of vulnerability.


> And one minor nit, let's just do a real forward declaration of
> refresh_mems() instead of local to check_for_release().

Normally, yes.  In this case, I was coding to keep the patch as
localized as possible, and less to optimize the resulting organization
of the kernel/cpuset.c source file after the patch was applied.

Given that this patch is unlikely to ever have a life beyond a briefly
discussed patch today, I guessed right ;)  Coding for clarity of the
patch, not of the source, was arguably the right choice this time.

Thanks.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401

  reply	other threads:[~2005-09-10  3:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-09-10  0:44 [PATCH 2.6.13-stable] cpuset semaphore double trip fix Paul Jackson
2005-09-10  1:56 ` Randy.Dunlap
2005-09-10  2:31   ` Paul Jackson
2005-09-10  3:01 ` Chris Wright
2005-09-10  3:20   ` Paul Jackson [this message]
2005-09-10  3:28     ` Chris Wright
2005-09-10  3:40       ` Paul Jackson

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=20050909202030.541049a7.pj@sgi.com \
    --to=pj@sgi.com \
    --cc=Simon.Derr@bull.net \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=chrisw@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stable@kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.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