Re: [patch 6/7] cpusets: per cpuset dirty ratios

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Determine the dirty ratios for the currently active cpuset
> > > > + */
> > > > +void cpuset_get_current_dirty_ratios(int *background, int *throttle)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	mutex_lock(&callback_mutex);
> > > > +	task_lock(current);
> > > > +	*background = task_cs(current)->dirty_background_ratio;
> > > > +	*throttle = task_cs(current)->cpuset_dirty_ratio;
> > > > +	task_unlock(current);
> > > > +	mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (*background == -1)
> > > > +		*background = dirty_background_ratio;
> > > > +	if (*throttle == -1)
> > > > +		*throttle = vm_dirty_ratio;
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > That's rather an awful lot of locking to read just two integers.
> > > 
> > 
> > As far as I know, task_lock(current) is required to dereference 
> > task_cs(current) and callback_mutex is required to ensure its the same 
> > cpuset.
> 
> Since we read these things for every evaluation, getting it wrong isn't
> too harmful.
> 
> So I would suggest just enough locking to ensure we don't reference any
> NULL pointers and such.
> 
> IIRC the cpuset stuff is RCU freed, so some racy read should be
> possible, no?
> 

Ah, that sounds reasonable.  We'll no longer require callback_mutex if we 
accept races when current attaches to another cpuset here.  We'll need 
rcu_read_lock() to safely dereference task_cs(current) unless it's 
top_cpuset, but that's much better than callback_mutex and spinning on 
task_lock(current).

Thanks!
--
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/