On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 16:02 -0500, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 07:52:21PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo....@lge.com> > > > > There is a race condition if we map a same file on different processes. > > Region tracking is protected by mmap_sem and hugetlb_instantiation_mutex. > > When we do mmap, we don't grab a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex, but only the, > > mmap_sem (exclusively). This doesn't prevent other tasks from modifying the > > region structure, so it can be modified by two processes concurrently. > > > > To solve this, introduce a spinlock to resv_map and make region manipulation > > function grab it before they do actual work. > > > > Acked-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> > > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo....@lge.com> > > [Updated changelog] > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidl...@hp.com> > > --- > ... > > @@ -203,15 +200,23 @@ static long region_chg(struct resv_map *resv, long f, > > long t) > > * Subtle, allocate a new region at the position but make it zero > > * size such that we can guarantee to record the reservation. */ > > if (&rg->link == head || t < rg->from) { > > - nrg = kmalloc(sizeof(*nrg), GFP_KERNEL); > > - if (!nrg) > > - return -ENOMEM; > > + if (!nrg) { > > + spin_unlock(&resv->lock); > > I think that doing kmalloc() inside the lock is simpler. > Why do you unlock and retry here?
This is a spinlock, no can do -- we've previously debated this and since the critical region is quite small, a non blocking lock is better suited here. We do the retry so we don't race once the new region is allocated after the lock is dropped. Thanks, Davidlohr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/