From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx119.postini.com [74.125.245.119]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A82046B002B for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:15:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:15:42 -0800 From: Zach Brown Subject: Re: [patch] bdi: add a user-tunable cpu_list for the bdi flusher threads Message-ID: <20121130221542.GM18574@lenny.home.zabbo.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Jeff Moyer Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org > + ret = cpulist_parse(buf, newmask); > + if (!ret) { > + spin_lock(&bdi->wb_lock); > + task = wb->task; > + get_task_struct(task); > + spin_unlock(&bdi->wb_lock); > + if (task) > + ret = set_cpus_allowed_ptr(task, newmask); > + put_task_struct(task); If that test for a non-null task is needed then surely the get and put need to be similarly protected :). > + bdi->flusher_cpumask = kmalloc(sizeof(cpumask_t), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!bdi->flusher_cpumask) > + return -ENOMEM; The bare GFP_KERNEL raises an eyebrow. Some bdi_init() callers like blk_alloc_queue_node() look like they'll want to pass in a gfp_t for the allocation. And shouldn't this be freed in the error path of bdi_init()? - z -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org