Re: [PATCH 1/4] comm: Introduce comm_lock spinlock to protect task->commaccess

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> > If we provide __get_task_comm(), we can't remove memset() forever.
>
> True enough. I'll fix that comment up then.
>
> > >    	task_lock(tsk);
> > > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&tsk->comm_lock, flags);
> >
> > This is strange order. task_lock() doesn't disable interrupt.
>
> Strange order? Can you explain why you think that is? Having comm_lock
> as an inner-most lock seems quite reasonable, given the limited nature
> of what it protects.

spinlock -> irq_disable is wrong order.

local_irq_save()
task_lock()
spin_lock(task->comm)

is better. I think.

I mean if the task get interrupt at following point,

    	task_lock(tsk);
        // HERE
	spin_lock_irqsave(&tsk->comm_lock, flags);

the task hold task-lock long time rather than expected.

> > And, can you please document why we need interrupt disabling?
>
> Since we might access current->comm from irq context. Where would you
> like this documented? Just there in the code?

I'm prefer code comment. but another way is also good.


Thanks.

--
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/