lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Patch v2] mm: thp: grab the lock before manipulation defer list
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:31:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 11-01-20 03:03:52, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 10:30:54PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> > > As all the other places, we grab the lock before manipulate the defer list.
> > > Current implementation may face a race condition.
> > >
> > > For example, the potential race would be:
> > >
> > > CPU1 CPU2
> > > mem_cgroup_move_account split_huge_page_to_list
> > > !list_empty
> > > lock
> > > !list_empty
> > > list_del
> > > unlock
> > > lock
> > > # !list_empty might not hold anymore
> > > list_del_init
> > > unlock
> >
> > I don't think this particular race is possible. Both parties take page
> > lock before messing with deferred queue, but anytway:
> >
> > Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
>
> I am confused, if the above race is not possible then what would be a
> real race? We really do not want to have a patch with a misleading
> changelog, do we?

The alternative is to make sure that all page_deferred_list() called with
page lock taken.

I'll look into it.

--
Kirill A. Shutemov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-14 11:32    [W:0.096 / U:4.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site