On 04/26, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> @@ -464,18 +464,15 @@ void mm_update_next_owner(struct mm_struct *mm)
> return;
>
> assign_new_owner:
> - BUG_ON(c == p);
> get_task_struct(c);
> + read_unlock(_lock);
> + BUG_ON(c == p);
> +
> /*
>* The task_lock protects
On 04/26, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> @@ -464,18 +464,15 @@ void mm_update_next_owner(struct mm_struct *mm)
> return;
>
> assign_new_owner:
> - BUG_ON(c == p);
> get_task_struct(c);
> + read_unlock(_lock);
> + BUG_ON(c == p);
> +
> /*
>* The task_lock protects
All the places, we update task's mm, are made this
under task_lock(). These are exec_mmap(), exit_mm()
and kernel thread's use_mm() and unuse_mm().
The only exception is copy_mm(), which initializes
newborn task's mm, but we can't race with it, as
mm_update_next_owner() iterates tasks already
All the places, we update task's mm, are made this
under task_lock(). These are exec_mmap(), exit_mm()
and kernel thread's use_mm() and unuse_mm().
The only exception is copy_mm(), which initializes
newborn task's mm, but we can't race with it, as
mm_update_next_owner() iterates tasks already
4 matches
Mail list logo
