Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:03:23 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] pid: tighten pidmap spinlock critical section by removing kfree() |
| |
On 11/23, Pekka Enberg wrote: > (Adding some CC's.) > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 2:16 PM, André Goddard Rosa > <andre.goddard@gmail.com> wrote: > > Avoid calling kfree() under pidmap spinlock, calling it afterwards. > > > > Normally kfree() is very fast, but sometimes it can be slow, so avoid > > calling it under the spinlock if we can.
kfree() is called when we race with another process which also finds map->page == NULL, allocs the new page and takes pidmap_lock before us. This is extremely unlikely case, right?
> > @@ -141,11 +141,12 @@ static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns) > > * installing it: > > */ > > spin_lock_irq(&pidmap_lock); > > - if (map->page) > > - kfree(page); > > - else > > + if (!map->page) { > > map->page = page; > > + page = NULL; > > + } > > spin_unlock_irq(&pidmap_lock); > > + kfree(page);
And this change pessimizes (a little bit) the likely case, when the race doesn't happen. And imho this change doesn't make the code more readable.
But this is subjective, and technically the patch is correct afaics.
> > if (unlikely(!map->page)) > > �
Hmm. Off-topic, but why alloc_pidmap() does not do this right after kzalloc() ?
Oleg.
-- 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/
| |