Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030767AbXEKX0e (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 May 2007 19:26:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758487AbXEKX02 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 May 2007 19:26:28 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([65.172.181.25]:35312 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755160AbXEKX01 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 May 2007 19:26:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:25:30 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linus Torvalds , Gautham R Shenoy , LKML , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Machek , "Eric W. Biederman" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] Freezer: Read PF_BORROWED_MM in a nonracy way Message-Id: <20070511162530.2f98bda2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <200705120122.07177.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200705110035.32229.rjw@sisk.pl> <200705112240.54304.rjw@sisk.pl> <200705120122.07177.rjw@sisk.pl> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2407 Lines: 66 On Sat, 12 May 2007 01:22:06 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > On Saturday, 12 May 2007 00:56, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > On Fri, 11 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > For user space processes this condition is always true. > > > > > > For kernel threads: > > > (1) the change of tsk->mm from NULL to a nonzero value is only made in > > > fs/aio.c:use_mm() along with the setting of PF_BORROWED_MM under > > > the task_lock(), > > > (2) the change of tsk->mm from a nonzero value to NULL is only made in > > > fs/aio.c:unuse_mm() along with the resetting of PF_BORROWED_MM > > > under the task_lock(). > > > Therefore, by taking the task_lock() here we make sure that the condition > > > is alyways false when we check it for kernel threads. > > > > Why *test* it then and return anything? > > > > Why not just doa "task_lock(p); task_unlock(p);" with no return value? > > > > As it is, it sounds like either the code is buggy, or it's pointless. > > I'm not sure what you mean. > > We use this function (ie. kernel/power/process.c:is_user_space()) to > distinguish kernel threads from user space processes. Therefore we make it > always return true for user space processes and always return false for kernel > threads. In the latter case we need to use the task_lock() to ensure that the > result is as desired (ie. false), because otherwise it might be racing with > either fs/aio.c:use_mm() or fs/aio.c:unuse_mm(). > ah, OK. static void use_mm(struct mm_struct *mm) { struct mm_struct *active_mm; struct task_struct *tsk = current; task_lock(tsk); tsk->flags |= PF_BORROWED_MM; active_mm = tsk->active_mm; atomic_inc(&mm->mm_count); tsk->mm = mm; tsk->active_mm = mm; /* * Note that on UML this *requires* PF_BORROWED_MM to be set, otherwise * it won't work. Update it accordingly if you change it here */ switch_mm(active_mm, mm, tsk); task_unlock(tsk); So is_user_space() requires that the state of p->mm and p->flags be consistent: it doesn't want to be looking at those two things in that three-statement window above. Good changelogging and commenting save quite a bit of time and email. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/