On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 2:10 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >> >> I don't think 80de7c3138ee9fd86a98696fd2cf7ad89b995d0a is right fix. >> > >> > It's certainly not a complete fix, but I think it's a much better result >> > of the race, i.e. we don't panic anymore, we simply fail the read() >> > instead. >> >> Even though 80de7c3138ee9fd86a98696fd2cf7ad89b995d0a itself is simple. It bring >> to caller complex. That's not good and have no worth. >> > > Before: the kernel panics, all workloads cease. > After: the file shows garbage, all workloads continue. > > This is better, in my opinion, but at best it's only a judgment call and > has no effect on anything. Kernel panics help to find our serious mistake. > I agree it would be better to respect the return value of mpol_to_str() > since there are other possible error conditions other than a freed > mempolicy, but let's not consider reverting 80de7c3138. It is obviously > not a full solution to the problem, though, and we need to serialize with > task_lock(). Sorry no. I will have to revert it. mempolicy have already a lot of meaningless complex and bring us a lot of problems. I haven't seen any reason adding more. > Dave, are you interested in coming up with a patch? -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>