![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Quoting Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>: > vatsa wrote: >> Well, someone may have attached to this cpuset while we were waiting on the >> mutex_lock(). So we need to do a atomic_read again to ensure it is still >> unused. > > I don't see how this could happen. If we hold the task lock that now > (thanks to your good work) guards this pointer, and if we decrement to > zero the reference count on the cpuset to which it points and then > -overwrite- this last remaining visible pointer to that cpuset with a > pointer to a different cpuset, then aren't we guaranteed to be holding > the last remaining reference to the old cpuset in our local variable, > making it impossible for anyone else to attach to it in any way? Yes, but the cpuset is not made invisible to userspace (in filesystem) yet. So as cpuset_exit() discovers that cpuset B has zero refcount now and blocks on mutex_lock(&manage_mutex) [ to do a check_for_release later ], someone could have done a attach_task to that cpuset. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-03-27 08:39 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||