From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757023Ab0DARCn (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:02:43 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:18584 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1758570Ab0DARB4 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:01:56 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 17:37:56 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, anfei <anfei.zhou@gmail.com>,
       KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
       nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp,
       KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
       Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] proc: don't take ->siglock for /proc/pid/oom_adj
Message-ID: <20100401153756.GD14603@redhat.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003281341590.30570@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <20100329112111.GA16971@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003291302170.14859@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <20100330163909.GA16884@redhat.com> <20100330174337.GA21663@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003301329420.5234@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <20100331185950.GB11635@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003311408520.31252@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <20100331230032.GB4025@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1004010128050.6285@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1004010128050.6285@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 04/01, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > > That doesn't work for depraceted_mode (sic), you'd need to test for
> > > OOM_ADJUST_MIN and OOM_ADJUST_MAX in that case.
> >
> > Yes, probably "if (depraceted_mode)" should do more checks, I didn't try
> > to verify that MIN/MAX are correctly converted. I showed this code to explain
> > what I mean.
> >
>
> Ok, please cc me on the patch, it will be good to get rid of the duplicate 
> code and remove oom_adj from struct signal_struct.

OK, great, will do tomorrow.

> Do we need ->siglock?  Why can't we just do
>
> 	struct sighand_struct *sighand;
> 	struct signal_struct *sig;
>
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	sighand = rcu_dereference(task->sighand);
> 	if (!sighand) {
> 		rcu_read_unlock();
> 		return;
> 	}
> 	sig = task->signal;
>
> 	... load/store to sig ...
>
> 	rcu_read_unlock();

No.

Before signals-make-task_struct-signal-immutable-refcountable.patch (actually,
series of patches), this can't work. ->signal is not protected by rcu, and
->sighand != NULL doesn't mean ->signal != NULL.

(yes, thread_group_cputime() is wrong too, but currently it is never called
 lockless).

After signals-make-task_struct-signal-immutable-refcountable.patch, we do not
need any checks at all, it is always safe to use ->signal.


But. Unless we kill signal->oom_adj, we have another reason for ->siglock,
we can't update both oom_adj and oom_score_adj atomically, and if we race
with another thread they can be inconsistent wrt each other. Yes, oom_adj
is not actually used, except we report it back to user-space, but still.

So, I am going to send 2 patches. The first one factors out the code
in base.c and kills signal->oom_adj, the next one removes ->siglock.

Oleg.