linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "zhen.ni" <zhen.ni@easystack.cn>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Fix redundant check and refine lock protection scope in init_nodemask_of_mempolicy
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:54:31 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <80c4fd84-ad2f-4ad4-a81c-ca426871fac4@easystack.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zz9GkUrTI2MFeq0P@PC2K9PVX.TheFacebook.com>

Hi David and Gregory,

Thank you for your detailed feedback and insights. I deeply appreciate 
the time you’ve taken to point out potential issues and to clarify the 
behavior of current->mempolicy under task_lock().

Regarding the "redundant check" in my patch, my intention was to 
simplify the readability of the check for mask and current->mempolicy. 
Your suggested alternative:
	if (!mask || !current->mapping)
is indeed more concise and clear. I fully agree with this change and 
will incorporate it.

On the issue of reading current->mempolicy outside the task_lock() 
context, I acknowledge the potential for introducing a race condition 
when current->mempolicy could be dereferenced after being freed. This 
was an oversight on my part, as I was primarily focused on reducing the 
lock scope.

Regarding the potential performance improvement, I recognize that the 
optimization is minor, and in this specific context, the lock is held 
for such a short duration that it is unlikely to provide any meaningful 
benefit.

I’ve revised the patch to simplify the conditional check and added a 
comment to clarify the behavior of current->mempolicy based on your 
input. Additionally, I’ve removed the lock scope optimization attempt to 
avoid introducing any potential race conditions.

 From 073e4ac5ee6a3f2b45804492f3865cf9157155e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Zhen Ni <zhen.ni@easystack.cn>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:48:05 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Improve readability of NULL check in
  init_nodemask_of_mempolicy

Refines the readability of the NULL check in init_nodemask_of_mempolicy.
Additionally, a comment is added to clarify current->mempolicy.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Ni <zhen.ni@easystack.cn>
---
  mm/mempolicy.c | 8 +++++++-
  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index b646fab3e45e..0f0dd33d20d4 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -2132,7 +2132,13 @@ bool init_nodemask_of_mempolicy(nodemask_t *mask)
  {
         struct mempolicy *mempolicy;

-       if (!(mask && current->mempolicy))
+       /*
+        * While current->mempolicy can race with someone changing
+        * current->mapping, it cannot race with changes that set it
+        * to NULL. Such changes are restricted to specific contexts
+        * (e.g., process initialization or exit).
+        */
+       if (!mask || !current->mempolicy)
                 return false;

         task_lock(current);
-- 
2.20.1


      reply	other threads:[~2024-11-22  3:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-11-21 12:24 Zhen Ni
2024-11-21 13:40 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-11-21 14:41   ` Gregory Price
2024-11-22  3:54     ` zhen.ni [this message]

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=80c4fd84-ad2f-4ad4-a81c-ca426871fac4@easystack.cn \
    --to=zhen.ni@easystack.cn \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=gourry@gourry.net \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.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