Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1236330

Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] mm/oom_kill: fix the wrong task->mm == mm checks in

From Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] mm/oom_kill: fix the wrong task->mm == mm checks in
Date 2015-09-30 16:10 +0200
Message-ID <qeqf0-7dN-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <qe44N-D4-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qe44N-D4-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qef9U-87p-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On 09/30, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Both "child->mm == mm" and "p->mm != mm" checks in oom_kill_process()
> > are wrong. ->mm can be if task is the exited group leader. This means
>
> can be [missing word here?] if task

Yes thanks. Will fix in v2.

Hmm. And I just noticed that the subjects were corrupted... need to fix
my script.

> > +static bool process_has_mm(struct task_struct *p, struct mm_struct *mm)
> > +{
> > +	struct task_struct *t;
> > +
> > +	for_each_thread(p, t)
> > +		if (t->mm)
>
> Can t->mm change between pevious line and next line?

Good point, thanks. I'll add READ_ONCE() to ensure gcc won't re-load
t->mm again.

> > @@ -530,7 +541,7 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *p,
> >  		list_for_each_entry(child, &t->children, sibling) {
> >  			unsigned int child_points;
> >
> > -			if (child->mm == p->mm)
> > +			if (process_has_mm(child, p->mm))
> >  				continue;
>
> We hold read_lock(&tasklist_lock) but not rcu_read_lock().
> Is for_each_thread() safe without rcu_read_lock()?

Yes, for_each_thread() is rcu and/or tasklist_lock safe.

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/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH -mm 0/3] mm/oom_kill: ensure we actually kill all tasks  sharing the same mm Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-29 16:30 +0200
  [PATCH -mm 3/3] mm/oom_kill: fix the wrong task->mm == mm checks in Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-29 16:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] mm/oom_kill: fix the wrong task->mm == mm checks  in David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-09-30 00:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] mm/oom_kill: fix the wrong task->mm == mm  checks in Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-30 16:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] mm/oom_kill: fix the wrong task->mm == mm checks in Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2015-09-30 04:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] mm/oom_kill: fix the wrong task->mm == mm  checks in Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-30 16:10 +0200
  [PATCH -mm 2/3] mm/oom_kill: cleanup the "kill sharing same memory" Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-29 16:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH -mm 2/3] mm/oom_kill: cleanup the "kill sharing same  memory" David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-09-30 00:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH -mm 2/3] mm/oom_kill: cleanup the "kill sharing same  memory" Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-30 16:00 +0200
  [PATCH -mm v2 0/3] mm/oom_kill: ensure we actually kill all tasks  sharing the same mm Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-09-30 20:30 +0200

csiph-web