On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:52:39 +0800
Miao Xie <miaox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> if MAX_NUMNODES > BITS_PER_LONG, loading/storing task->mems_allowed or mems_allowed in
> task->mempolicy are not atomic operations, and the kernel page allocator gets an empty
> mems_allowed when updating task->mems_allowed or mems_allowed in task->mempolicy. So we
> use a rwlock to protect them to fix this probelm.
Boy, that is one big ugly patch. Is there no other way of doing this?
>
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/mempolicy.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ enum {
> */
> #define MPOL_F_SHARED (1 << 0) /* identify shared policies */
> #define MPOL_F_LOCAL (1 << 1) /* preferred local allocation */
> +#define MPOL_F_TASK (1 << 2) /* identify tasks' policies */
What's this? It wasn't mentioned in the changelog - I suspect it
should have been?
>
> ...
>
> +int cpuset_mems_allowed_intersects(struct task_struct *tsk1,
> + struct task_struct *tsk2)
> {
> - return nodes_intersects(tsk1->mems_allowed, tsk2->mems_allowed);
> + unsigned long flags1, flags2;
> + int retval;
> +
> + read_mem_lock_irqsave(tsk1, flags1);
> + read_mem_lock_irqsave(tsk2, flags2);
> + retval = nodes_intersects(tsk1->mems_allowed, tsk2->mems_allowed);
> + read_mem_unlock_irqrestore(tsk2, flags2);
> + read_mem_unlock_irqrestore(tsk1, flags1);
I suspect this is deadlockable in sufficiently arcane circumstances:
one task takes the locks in a,b order, another task takes them in b,a
order and a third task gets in at the right time and does a
write_lock(). Probably that's not possible for some reason, dunno. The usual
way of solving this is to always take the locks in
sorted-by-ascending-virtual-address order.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>