On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 04:44:59PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, Wei Yang wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 11:29:06AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
>> >On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, Wei Yang wrote:
>> >
>> >> As all the other places, we grab the lock before manipulate the defer list.
>> >> Current implementation may face a race condition.
>> >>
>> >> Fixes: 87eaceb3faa5 ("mm: thp: make deferred split shrinker memcg aware")
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> I notice the difference during code reading and just confused about the
>> >> difference. No specific test is done since limited knowledge about cgroup.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe I miss something important?
>> >
>> >The check for !list_empty(page_deferred_list(page)) must certainly be
>> >serialized with doing list_del_init(page_deferred_list(page)).
>> >
>>
>> Hi David
>>
>> Would you mind giving more information? You mean list_empty and list_del_init
>> is atomic?
>>
>
>I mean your patch is obviously correct :) It should likely also have a
>stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 5.4+
Ah, my poor English ;-)
>
>Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
