On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/30, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > "mm->locked_vm += grow" and vm_stat_account() in acct_stack_growth()
> > > are not safe; multiple threads using the same ->mm can do this at the
> > > same time tryin
On 09/30, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > "mm->locked_vm += grow" and vm_stat_account() in acct_stack_growth()
> > are not safe; multiple threads using the same ->mm can do this at the
> > same time trying to expans different vma's under down_read(mmap_sem).
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> "mm->locked_vm += grow" and vm_stat_account() in acct_stack_growth()
> are not safe; multiple threads using the same ->mm can do this at the
> same time trying to expans different vma's under down_read(mmap_sem).
expand
> This means
"mm->locked_vm += grow" and vm_stat_account() in acct_stack_growth()
are not safe; multiple threads using the same ->mm can do this at the
same time trying to expans different vma's under down_read(mmap_sem).
This means that one of the "locked_vm += grow" changes can be lost
and we can miss munlock
4 matches
Mail list logo