linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
To: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"# 6 . 14 . x" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
	damon@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, JaeJoon Jung <rgbi3307@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/damon/core: remove call_control in inactive contexts
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 19:45:14 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251230034516.48129-1-sj@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251230024129.47591-1-sj@kernel.org>

On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 18:41:28 -0800 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 17:45:30 -0800 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 28 Dec 2025 10:31:01 -0800 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
[...]
> > I will send a new version of this fix soon.
> 
> So far, I got two fixup ideas.
> 
> The first one is keeping the current code as is, and additionally modifying
> kdamond_call() to protect all call_control object accesses under
> ctx->call_controls_lock protection.
> 
> The second one is reverting this patch, and doing the DAMON running status
> check before adding the damon_call_control object, but releasing the
> kdamond_lock after the object insertion is done.
> 
> I'm in favor of the second one at the moment, as it seems more simple.

I don't really like both approaches because those implicitly add locking rules.
If the first approach is taken, damon_call() callers should aware they should
not register callback functions that can hold call_controls_lock.  If the
second approach is taken, we should avoid holding kdamond_lock while holding
damon_call_control lock.  The second implicit rule seems easier to keep to me,
but I want to avoid that if possible.

The third idea I just got is, keeping this patch as is, and moving the final
kdamond_call() invocation to be made _before_ the ctx->kdamond reset.  That
removes the race condition between the final kdamond_call() and
damon_call_handle_inactive_ctx(), without introducing new locking rules.


Thanks,
SJ

[...]


  reply	other threads:[~2025-12-30  3:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-12-28 18:31 SeongJae Park
2025-12-30  1:45 ` SeongJae Park
2025-12-30  2:41   ` SeongJae Park
2025-12-30  3:45     ` SeongJae Park [this message]
2025-12-31  1:25       ` SeongJae Park
2025-12-31  5:27         ` JaeJoon Jung
2025-12-31 15:26           ` SeongJae Park
2026-01-01  0:55             ` JaeJoon Jung
2026-01-01  1:41               ` SeongJae Park
2026-01-01  2:58                 ` JaeJoon Jung

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20251230034516.48129-1-sj@kernel.org \
    --to=sj@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=damon@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=rgbi3307@gmail.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox