Re: Containers: css_put() dilemma

From: Paul (宝瑠) Menage
Date: Tue Jul 17 2007 - 11:50:32 EST


On 7/17/07, Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul (??) Menage wrote:
> On 7/17/07, Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > > mutex_lock(&container_mutex);
>> > > set_bit(CONT_RELEASABLE, &cont->flags);
>> > >- if (atomic_dec_and_test(&css->refcnt)) {
>> > >- check_for_release(cont);
>> > >- }
>> > >+ check_for_release(cont);
>> > > mutex_unlock(&container_mutex);
>> > >
>
> I think that this isn't safe as it stands, without a synchronize_rcu()
> in container_diput() prior to the kfree(). Also, it will break if
> anyone tries to use a release agent on a hierarchy that has your
> memory controller bound to it.
>


Isn't the code functionally the same as before? We still do atomic_test_and_dec()
as before. We still set_bit() CONT_RELEASABLE, we take the container_mutex
and check_for_release(). I am not sure I understand what changed?

Because as soon as you do the atomic_dec_and_test() on css->refcnt and
the refcnt hits zero, then theoretically someone other thread (that
already holds container_mutex) could check that the refcount is zero
and free the container structure.

Adding a synchronize_rcu in container_diput() guarantees that the
container structure won't be freed while someone may still be
accessing it.


Could you please elaborate as to why using a release agent is broken
when the memory controller is attached to it?

Because then it will try to take container_mutex in css_put() if it
drops the last reference to a container, which is the thing that you
said you had to avoid since you called css_put() in contexts that
couldn't sleep.

Paul
-
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/