* Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> [2009-04-20 16:56:59]:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 08:35:40PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Assign "page" the same owner as "opage."
> > > > + */
> > > > +void bio_cgroup_copy_owner(struct page *npage, struct page *opage)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct page_cgroup *npc, *opc;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (bio_cgroup_disabled())
> > > > + return;
> > > > + npc = lookup_page_cgroup(npage);
> > > > + if (unlikely(!npc))
> > > > + return;
> > > > + opc = lookup_page_cgroup(opage);
> > > > + if (unlikely(!opc))
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Do this without any locks. The reason is the same as
> > > > + * bio_cgroup_reset_owner().
> > > > + */
> > > > + npc->bio_cgroup_id = opc->bio_cgroup_id;
> > >
> > > What protects npc and opc?
> >
> > As the same reason mentioned above, bio_cgroup_id can be updated
> > without any locks, and npc and opc always point to page_cgroups.
> > An integer variable can be set a new value at once on a system which
> > can use RCU lock.
>
> mmmh... I'm not sure about this. Actually you read opc->bio_cgroup_id
> first and then write to npc->bio_cgroup_id, so it is not atomic at all.
> So, you can read or set a wrong ID, but at least it should be always
> consistent (the single read or write itself is atomic).
Quick concern here, how long does it take for the data to become
consistent? Can we have a group misuse the bandwidth during that time?
What about conditions where you have a wrong ID, but the group
associated with the wrong ID is gone?
--
Balbir
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
