Re: [PATCH 1/2] memcg: mm_update_next_owner: kill the "retry" logic

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>]

On Thu 27-06-24 10:29:42, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Michal, thanks for looking at this,
> 
> On 06/27, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 26-06-24 17:29:24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > @@ -446,7 +463,6 @@ void mm_update_next_owner(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct task_struct *c, *g, *p = current;
> > >
> > > -retry:
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * If the exiting or execing task is not the owner, it's
> > >  	 * someone else's problem.
> > > @@ -468,16 +484,16 @@ void mm_update_next_owner(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > >  	 * Search in the children
> > >  	 */
> > >  	list_for_each_entry(c, &p->children, sibling) {
> > > -		if (c->mm == mm)
> > > -			goto assign_new_owner;
> > > +		if (c->mm == mm && try_to_set_owner(c, mm))
> > > +			goto ret;
> >
> > You need to unlock tasklist_lock, right? Same for other goto ret.
> 
> No. From the patch
> 
> 	+/* drops tasklist_lock if succeeds */
> 	+static bool try_to_set_owner(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
> 	+{
> 	+       bool ret = false;
> 	+
> 	+       task_lock(tsk);
> 	+       if (likely(tsk->mm == mm)) {
> 	+               /* tsk can't pass exit_mm/exec_mmap and exit */
> 	+               read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> 	                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> try_to_set_owner() drops tasklist right after it verifies that
> tsk->mm == mm under task_lock().

Yes, I am blind and the commend even explains that. I am not a propoment 
of schemes where locks are released in a different function. But the
overall simplification here is worth that.

Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs