From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757349AbdJLW6z convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 18:58:55 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:34156 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755460AbdJLW6x (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 18:58:53 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:58:50 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Rik van Riel Cc: Gargi Sharma , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, julia.lawall@lip6.fr, mingo@kernel.org, pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, ktkhai@virtuozzo.com, oleg@redhat.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, hch@infradead.org, lkp@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] pid: Replace pid bitmap implementation with IDR API Message-Id: <20171012155850.1f38f3a6fd14c669343d4492@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1507769672.21121.192.camel@surriel.com> References: <1507760379-21662-1-git-send-email-gs051095@gmail.com> <1507760379-21662-2-git-send-email-gs051095@gmail.com> <20171011153716.5cd0689bb7030b886b0d62f9@linux-foundation.org> <1507769672.21121.192.camel@surriel.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:54:32 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 15:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:19:38 -0400 Gargi Sharma > > wrote: > > > > > This patch replaces the current bitmap implemetation for > > > Process ID allocation. Functions that are no longer required, > > > for example, free_pidmap(), alloc_pidmap(), etc. are removed. > > > The rest of the functions are modified to use the IDR API. > > > The change was made to make the PID allocation less complex by > > > replacing custom code with calls to generic API. > > > > I still don't understand the locking.  spin_lock_irq(&pidmap_lock) in > > some places, rcu_read_lock() in others. > > > > If the locking is indeed now correct, can we please get it fully > > documented?  A comment at the pid_namespace.idr definition site would > > suit. > > Would you like me to send a follow-up patch to document the > locking? Sure. > Documenting the locking on all the existing code, plus the > new code, seems a little out of scope of an Outreachy > internship... I'm not referring to all the existing code! Just this new pid_namespace.idr's locking. If it was protected by spin_lock_irq(&pidmap_lock) everywhere then an explanation wouldn't be needed. But we have this oddball site where pidmap_lock isn't taken but it uses rcu_read_lock() which is surprising to say the least. Readers could be forgiven for thinking that is a bug.