On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 02:54:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > -static inline void put_mems_allowed(void)
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * If this returns false, the operation that took place after get_mems_allowed
> > > > + * may have failed. It is up to the caller to retry the operation if
> > > > + * appropriate
> > > > + */
> > > > +static inline bool put_mems_allowed(unsigned int seq)
> > > > {
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * ensure that reading mems_allowed and mempolicy before reducing
> > > > - * mems_allowed_change_disable.
> > > > - *
> > > > - * the write-side task will know that the read-side task is still
> > > > - * reading mems_allowed or mempolicy, don't clears old bits in the
> > > > - * nodemask.
> > > > - */
> > > > - smp_mb();
> > > > - --ACCESS_ONCE(current->mems_allowed_change_disable);
> > > > + return !read_seqcount_retry(¤t->mems_allowed_seq, seq);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static inline void set_mems_allowed(nodemask_t nodemask)
> > >
> > > How come set_mems_allowed() still uses task_lock()?
> > >
> >
> > Consistency.
> >
> > The task_lock is taken by kernel/cpuset.c when updating
> > mems_allowed so it is taken here. That said, it is unnecessary to take
> > as the two places where set_mems_allowed is used are not going to be
> > racing. In the unlikely event that set_mems_allowed() gets another user,
> > there is no harm is leaving the task_lock as it is. It's not in a hot
> > path of any description.
>
> But shouldn't set_mems_allowed() bump mems_allowed_seq?
Yes, it should. It's not necessary with the existing callers but the
"consistency" argument applies. Fixed now.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>