Re: [PATCH 6/6] cpuset dirty limits

[Ethan Solomita]

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
>>> +	mutex_lock(&callback_mutex);
>>> +	*cs_int = val;
>>> +	mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex);
>> I don't think this locking does anything?
> 
> Locking is wrong here. The lock needs to be taken before the cs pointer 
> is dereferenced from the caller.

	I think we can just remove the callback_mutex lock. Since the change is
coming from an update to a cpuset filesystem file, the cpuset is not
going anywhere since the inode is open. And I don't see that any code
really cares whether the dirty ratios change out from under them.

> 
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  /*
>>>   * Frequency meter - How fast is some event occurring?
>>>   *
>>> ...
>>> +void cpuset_get_current_ratios(int *background_ratio, int *throttle_ratio)
>>> +{
>>> +	int background = -1;
>>> +	int throttle = -1;
>>> +	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
>>> +
>>> +	task_lock(tsk);
>>> +	background = task_cs(tsk)->background_dirty_ratio;
>>> +	throttle = task_cs(tsk)->throttle_dirty_ratio;
>>> +	task_unlock(tsk);
>> ditto?
> 
> It is required to take the task lock while dereferencing the tasks cpuset 
> pointer.

	Agreed.
	-- Ethan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/