Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: call complete_vfork_done() after clearing child_tidand flushing rss-counters

[Konstantin Khlebnikov]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:09:53 +0400
> Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>
> > Child should wake ups parent from vfork() only after finishing all operations with
> > shared mm. There is no sense to use CLONE_CHILD_CLEARTID together with CLONE_VFORK,
> > but it looks more accurate now.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > @@ -728,9 +728,6 @@ void mm_release(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
> >   	/* Get rid of any cached register state */
> >   	deactivate_mm(tsk, mm);
> >
> > -	if (tsk->vfork_done)
> > -		complete_vfork_done(tsk);
> > -
> >   	/*
> >   	 * If we're exiting normally, clear a user-space tid field if
> >   	 * requested.  We leave this alone when dying by signal, to leave
> > @@ -759,6 +756,13 @@ void mm_release(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
> >   	 */
> >   	if (mm)
> >   		sync_mm_rss(mm);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * All done, finally we can wake up parent and return this mm to him.
> > +	 * Also kthread_stop() uses this completion for synchronization.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (tsk->vfork_done)
> > +		complete_vfork_done(tsk);
> >   }
>
> That does look a bit racy.
>
> But are we really sure that the patch really does fix something?
> Because it does increase vfork() latency a tiny bit.
>
> I'm going to call this a patch against the fork subsystem, not the mm
> subsystem.
>
> I believe that this patch is unrelated to "mm: set task exit code
> before complete_vfork_done()", yes?

Yes, unrelated.
--
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/