From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To: bookjovi@gmail.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Stephen Wilson <wilsons@start.ca>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: put check_mem_permission before __get_free_page in mem_read
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 20:56:14 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1104252048190.6978@sister.anvils> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1303086002-6961-1-git-send-email-bookjovi@gmail.com>
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011, bookjovi@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Jovi Zhang <bookjovi@gmail.com>
>
> It should be better if put check_mem_permission before __get_free_page
> in mem_read, to be same as function mem_write.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jovi Zhang <bookjovi@gmail.com>
Sorry to be contrary, but I disagree with this. I'm all for consistency,
but is there a particular reason why you think the mem_write ordering is
right and mem_read wrong?
My reason for preferring the current mem_read ordering is this:
check_mem_permission gets a reference to the mm. If we __get_free_page
after check_mem_permission, imagine what happens if the system is out
of memory, and the mm we're looking at is selected for killing by the
OOM killer: while we wait in __get_free_page for more memory, no memory
is freed from the selected mm because it cannot reach exit_mmap while
we hold that reference.
(I may be overstating the case: a little memory may be freed from the
exiting task's stack, and kswapd should still be able to pick some pages
off the mm. But nonetheless, we would do better to let this mm go.)
No doubt there are plenty of other places in /proc which try to
allocate memory after taking a reference on an mm; but I think
we should be working to eliminate those rather than add to them.
Hugh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-26 3:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-18 0:20 bookjovi
2011-04-24 15:33 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-04-25 14:31 ` Stephen Wilson
2011-04-26 3:56 ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2011-04-26 5:12 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-04-26 5:50 ` [PATCH] proc: fix pagemap_read() error case (was Re: [PATCH] proc: put check_mem_permission before __get_free_page in mem_read) KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-04-26 16:44 ` Stephen Wilson
2011-04-26 20:44 ` Hugh Dickins
2011-04-28 1:45 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-04-26 16:03 ` [PATCH] proc: put check_mem_permission before __get_free_page in mem_read Stephen Wilson
2011-04-26 20:19 ` Hugh Dickins
2011-04-26 8:55 ` Jovi Zhang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LSU.2.00.1104252048190.6978@sister.anvils \
--to=hughd@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bookjovi@gmail.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=wilsons@start.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®