MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20120612142012.GB20467@suse.de>
References: <1339406250-10169-1-git-send-email-kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>
 <1339406250-10169-6-git-send-email-kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> <20120612142012.GB20467@suse.de>
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:31:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHGf_=omc4g_JHu+mr-HKmoH=juhcXKgPGOKamAOrJCWkbdEMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] mempolicy: fix a memory corruption by refcount
 imbalance in alloc_pages_vma()
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@google.com>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 851
Lines: 18

> Why does dequeue_huge_page_vma() not need to be changed as well? It's
> currently using mpol_cond_put() but if there is a goto retry_cpuset then
> will it have not take an additional reference count and leak?

dequeue_huge_page_vma() also uses get_vma_policy() and mpol_cond_put()
pair. thus we don't need special concern.


> Would it be more straight forward to put the mpol_cond_put() and __mpol_put()
> calls after the "goto retry_cpuset" checks instead?

I hope to keep symmetric. Sane design prevent a lot of unintentional breakage.
Frankly says, now all caller assume the symmetric. It's natural.
--
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/