On 03/24, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>
> Many architctures clear tasks' mm_cpumask like this:
>
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> for_each_process(p) {
> if (p->mm)
> cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(p->mm));
> }
> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
Namely arm, powerpc, and sh.
> The code above has several problems, such as:
>
> 1. Working with task->mm w/o getting mm or grabing the task lock is
> dangerous as ->mm might disappear (exit_mm() assigns NULL under
> task_lock(), so tasklist lock is not enough).
This is not actually true for arm and sh, afaics. They do not even
need tasklist or rcu lock for for_each_process().
__cpu_disable() is called by __stop_machine(), we know that nobody
can preempt us and other CPUs can do nothing.
> 2. Checking for process->mm is not enough because process' main
> thread may exit or detach its mm via use_mm(), but other threads
> may still have a valid mm.
Yes,
> Also, Per Peter Zijlstra's idea, now we don't grab tasklist_lock in
> the new helper, instead we take the rcu read lock. We can do this
> because the function is called after the cpu is taken down and marked
> offline, so no new tasks will get this cpu set in their mm mask.
And only powerpc needs rcu_read_lock() and task_lock().
OTOH, I do not understand why powepc does this on CPU_DEAD...
And probably CPU_UP_CANCELED doesn't need to clear mm_cpumask().
That said, personally I think these patches are fine, the common
helper makes sense.
Oleg.
--
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>