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

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

>> 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, 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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>