lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Containers: css_put() dilemma
Paul (??) Menage wrote:
> On 7/17/07, Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > mutex_lock(&container_mutex);
>> > > set_bit(CONT_RELEASABLE, &cont->flags);
>> > >- if (atomic_dec_and_test(&css->refcnt)) {
>> > >- check_for_release(cont);
>> > >- }
>> > >+ check_for_release(cont);
>> > > mutex_unlock(&container_mutex);
>> > >
>
> I think that this isn't safe as it stands, without a synchronize_rcu()
> in container_diput() prior to the kfree(). Also, it will break if
> anyone tries to use a release agent on a hierarchy that has your
> memory controller bound to it.
>


Isn't the code functionally the same as before? We still do atomic_test_and_dec()
as before. We still set_bit() CONT_RELEASABLE, we take the container_mutex
and check_for_release(). I am not sure I understand what changed?

Could you please elaborate as to why using a release agent is broken
when the memory controller is attached to it? I am not quite sure why we
need the synchronize_rcu() either in container_diput().



> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers


--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
-
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: 2007-07-17 12:31    [W:0.067 / U:8.080 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site