Re: [PATCH] shm: optimize exit_shm()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/03, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 21:29 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/03, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 21:08 +0200, Manuel Lauss wrote:
> > > > > +
> > > > >        /* Destroy all already created segments, but not mapped yet */
> > > > >        down_write(&shm_ids(ns).rw_mutex);
> > > > >        if (shm_ids(ns).in_use)
> > > >
> > > > This check here is now unnecessary, yes?
> > >
> > > No, as I said in the comment above, other task may be holding the mutex and
> > > deleting the last shm segment.  So, current task will see in_use == 1
> > > before down_write(), but == 0 after it.
> >
> > And? Why we can not do idr_for_each() in this (unikely) case?
>
> Because it's pointless.  idr_for_each() would not find any used segment.

This is clear. But it seems that me + Manuel were equally confused
by the changelog.

> > > > And this also fixes the oops.
> > >
> > > Yes, but it only hides the real problem - tasks' dependency on initialized
> > > init_*_ns.
> >
> > This is true, but your patch has the same dependency, but pretends
> > it doesn't ;) and it complicates the code.
>
> I didn't say that .in_use check fixes the oops.

I meant your shm-fix-a-race-between-shm_exit-and-shm_init.patch
which should be dropped imho ;)

Oleg.

--
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/