On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > dump_task() should use find_lock_task_mm() too. It is necessary for
> > protecting task-exiting race.
>
> A full description of the race would help people understand the code
> and the change.
>
Ok, here's a description of it that you can add to KOSAKI's changelog if
you'd like:
dump_tasks() currently filters any task that does not have an attached
->mm since it incorrectly assumes that it must either be in process of
exiting and has detached its memory or that it's a kernel thread;
multithreaded tasks may actually have subthreads that have a valid ->mm
pointer and thus those threads should actually be displayed. This change
finds those threads, if they exist, and emit its information along with
the rest of the candidate tasks for kill.
> > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/oom_kill.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -336,35 +336,38 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned long *ppoints,
> > */
> > static void dump_tasks(const struct mem_cgroup *mem)
>
> The comment over this function needs to be updated to describe the role
> of incoming argument `mem'.
>
Ok, I can take care of this as another comment cleanup in a followup
patch.
> > {
> > - struct task_struct *g, *p;
> > + struct task_struct *p;
> > + struct task_struct *task;
> >
> > printk(KERN_INFO "[ pid ] uid tgid total_vm rss cpu oom_adj "
> > "name\n");
> > - do_each_thread(g, p) {
> > - struct mm_struct *mm;
> > -
> > - if (mem && !task_in_mem_cgroup(p, mem))
> > + for_each_process(p) {
>
> The switch from do_each_thread() to for_each_process() is
> unchangelogged. It looks like a little cleanup to me.
>
> > + /*
> > + * We don't have is_global_init() check here, because the old
> > + * code do that. printing init process is not big matter. But
> > + * we don't hope to make unnecessary compatibility breaking.
> > + */
>
> When merging others' patches, please do review and if necessary fix or
> enhance the comments and the changelog. I don't think people take
> offense.
>
Ok, I wasn't sure of the etiquette and I didn't want anything else holding
this work up.
> Also, I don't think it's really valuable to document *changes* within
> the code comments. This comment is referring to what the old code did
> versus the new code. Generally it's best to just document the code as
> it presently stands and leave the documentation of the delta to the
> changelog.
>
> That's not always true, of course - we should document oddball code
> which is left there for userspace-visible back-compatibility reasons.
>
Agreed, I think KOSAKI might be working on a patch that moves all of this
tasklist filtering logic to a helper function and would probably fix this
up. KOSAKI?
>
> > + if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
> > continue;
> > - if (!thread_group_leader(p))
> > + if (mem && !task_in_mem_cgroup(p, mem))
> > continue;
> >
> > - task_lock(p);
> > - mm = p->mm;
> > - if (!mm) {
> > + task = find_lock_task_mm(p);
> > + if (!task) {
> > /*
> > - * total_vm and rss sizes do not exist for tasks with no
> > - * mm so there's no need to report them; they can't be
> > - * oom killed anyway.
> > + * Probably oom vs task-exiting race was happen and ->mm
> > + * have been detached. thus there's no need to report
> > + * them; they can't be oom killed anyway.
> > */
>
> OK, that hinted at the race but still didn't really tell readers what it is.
>
It's actually mostly incorrect, it does short-circuit the iteration when a
task is found to have already exited or detached its memory while we're
holding tasklist_lock, but the old comment was probably better. The
scenario where this condition will be true 99% of the time is when
iterating through the tasklist and finding a kthread. I'll fix this up.
--
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>