On 04/01, David Rientjes wrote:
quoted text
>
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > > That doesn't work for depraceted_mode (sic), you'd need to test for
> > > OOM_ADJUST_MIN and OOM_ADJUST_MAX in that case.
> >
> > Yes, probably "if (depraceted_mode)" should do more checks, I didn't try
> > to verify that MIN/MAX are correctly converted. I showed this code to explain
> > what I mean.
> >
>
> Ok, please cc me on the patch, it will be good to get rid of the duplicate 
> code and remove oom_adj from struct signal_struct.

OK, great, will do tomorrow.

quoted text
> Do we need ->siglock?  Why can't we just do
>
> 	struct sighand_struct *sighand;
> 	struct signal_struct *sig;
>
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	sighand = rcu_dereference(task->sighand);
> 	if (!sighand) {
> 		rcu_read_unlock();
> 		return;
> 	}
> 	sig = task->signal;
>
> 	... load/store to sig ...
>
> 	rcu_read_unlock();

No.

Before signals-make-task_struct-signal-immutable-refcountable.patch (actually,
series of patches), this can't work. ->signal is not protected by rcu, and
->sighand != NULL doesn't mean ->signal != NULL.

(yes, thread_group_cputime() is wrong too, but currently it is never called
 lockless).

After signals-make-task_struct-signal-immutable-refcountable.patch, we do not
need any checks at all, it is always safe to use ->signal.


But. Unless we kill signal->oom_adj, we have another reason for ->siglock,
we can't update both oom_adj and oom_score_adj atomically, and if we race
with another thread they can be inconsistent wrt each other. Yes, oom_adj
is not actually used, except we report it back to user-space, but still.

So, I am going to send 2 patches. The first one factors out the code
in base.c and kills signal->oom_adj, the next one removes ->siglock.

Oleg.

--
unsubscribe notice
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/