Re: [PATCH 2/4] vfork: make it killable

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:27:06 +0100
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -669,10 +669,34 @@ struct mm_struct *mm_access(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode)
>  
>  void complete_vfork_done(struct task_struct *tsk)
>  {
> -	struct completion *vfork_done = tsk->vfork_done;
> +	struct completion *vfork;
>  
> -	tsk->vfork_done = NULL;
> -	complete(vfork_done);
> +	task_lock(tsk);
> +	vfork = tsk->vfork_done;
> +	if (likely(vfork)) {
> +		tsk->vfork_done = NULL;
> +		complete(vfork);
> +	}
> +	task_unlock(tsk);
> +}

OK, so now we don't need to test tsk->vfork_done in callers.  But
mm_release() still does this, and it does it outside locks.  Mistake,
or micro-optimisation?  If the latter, why is the lockless peek
race-free?

--
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/