[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1228396022.13111.27.camel@nimitz>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:07:02 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ftrace: use struct pid
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 04:56 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 04:42 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > > +static void clear_ftrace_pid_task(struct pid **pid)
> > > +{
> > > + struct task_struct *p;
> > > +
> > rcu_read_lock();
> >
> > > + do_each_pid_task(*pid, PIDTYPE_PID, p) {
> > > + clear_tsk_trace_trace(p);
> > > + } while_each_pid_task(*pid, PIDTYPE_PID, p);
> > rcu_read_unlock()
> >
> > > + put_pid(*pid);
> > > +
> > > + *pid = NULL;
> > > +}
>
> Could we get away with sticking the rcu_read_{un}lock() inside those
> macros? Those are going to get used in pretty high level code and we're
> allowed to nest rcu_read_lock(). No danger of deadlocks or lock
> inversions.
Why don't any of the other users of do_each_pid_task() use
rcu_read_lock()? They all seem to be under read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
(except one is under a write lock of the same).
-- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists