On 2010-11-10 17:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > (another try with the proper email address) > > On 11/09, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> >> Thank you, Oleg! Greg, would you be willing to update your patch >> to remove the comment? (Perhaps tasklist_lock as well...) > > Agreed, I think tasklock should be killed. > > > But wait. Whatever we do, isn't this code racy? I do not see why, say, > sys_ioprio_set(IOPRIO_WHO_PROCESS) can't install ->io_context after > this task has already passed exit_io_context(). > > Jens, am I missed something? Not sure, I think the original intent was for the tasklist_lock to protect from a concurrent exit, but that looks like nonsense and it was just there to protect the task lookup. How about moving the ->io_context check and exit_io_context() in do_exit() under the task lock? Coupled with a check for PF_EXITING in set_task_ioprio(). -- Jens Axboe -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>