Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time [message #46403 is a reply to message #46402] |
Thu, 17 May 2012 10:27 |
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Messages: 463 Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
(2012/05/17 19:22), Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 05/17/2012 02:18 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> (2012/05/17 18:52), Glauber Costa wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/17/2012 09:37 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>
>> 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.
>
>
|
|
|