Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/10] Task watchers v2 Register cpuset taskwatcher

[Paul Jackson]

Matt wrote:

> -	cpuset_fork(p);
>  #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
>   	p->mempolicy = mpol_copy(p->mempolicy);
>   	if (IS_ERR(p->mempolicy)) {
>   		retval = PTR_ERR(p->mempolicy);
>   		p->mempolicy = NULL;
> - 		goto bad_fork_cleanup_cpuset;
> + 		goto bad_fork_cleanup_delays_binfmt;
>   	}
>  	mpol_fix_fork_child_flag(p);
>  #endif
>  #ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
>  	p->irq_events = 0;
> @@ -1280,13 +1278,11 @@ bad_fork_cleanup_files:
>  bad_fork_cleanup_security:
>  	security_task_free(p);
>  bad_fork_cleanup_policy:
>  #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
>  	mpol_free(p->mempolicy);
> -bad_fork_cleanup_cpuset:
>  #endif
> -	cpuset_exit(p);
>  bad_fork_cleanup_delays_binfmt:


The above code, before your change, had the affect that if mpol_copy()
failed, then the cpusets that were just setup by the cpuset_fork()
call were undone by a cpuset_exit() call.

>From what I can tell, after your change, this is no longer done,
and a failed mpol_copy will leave cpusets in an incorrect state.

Am I missing something?

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/