(2012/05/17 19:22), Glauber Costa wrote:

On 05/17/2012 02:18 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

quoted

(2012/05/17 18:52), Glauber Costa wrote:

quoted

On 05/17/2012 09:37 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

  If that happens, locking in static_key_slow_inc will prevent any damage.
  My previous version had explicit code to prevent that, but we were
  pointed out that this is already part of the static_key expectations, so
  that was dropped.

This makes no sense.  If two threads run that code concurrently,
key->enabled gets incremented twice.  Nobody anywhere has a record that
this happened so it cannot be undone.  key->enabled is now in an
unknown state.

Kame, Tejun,

Andrew is right. It seems we will need that mutex after all. Just this
is not a race, and neither something that should belong in the
static_branch interface.

Hmm....how about having

res_counter_xchg_limit(res,&old_limit, new_limit);

if (!cg_proto->updated&&  old_limit == RESOURCE_MAX)
	....update labels...

Then, no mutex overhead maybe and activated will be updated only once.
Ah, but please fix in a way you like. Above is an example.

I think a mutex is a lot cleaner than adding a new function to the 
res_counter interface.

We could do a counter, and then later decrement the key until the 
counter reaches zero, but between those two, I still think a mutex here 
is preferable.

Only that, instead of coming up with a mutex of ours, we could export 
and reuse set_limit_mutex from memcontrol.c

ok, please.

thx,
-Kame

quoted

Thanks,
-Kame
(*) I'm sorry I won't be able to read e-mails, tomorrow.

Ok Kame. I am not in a terrible hurry to fix this, it doesn't seem to be 
hurting any real workload.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>