[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090717164346.GC5131@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:43:46 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kmemleak: Scan all thread stacks
* Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> This patch changes the for_each_process() loop with the
> do_each_thread()/while_each_thread() pair. It also replaces the
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock) with rcu_read_lock() and task_lock(p).
>
> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> ---
>
> My questions:
>
> 1. Is it correct that for_each_process() used currently by kmemleak may
> not loop through all the possible kernel thread stacks?
yes. You need the full, all tasks variant:
do_each_thread(g, p) {
...
} while_each_thread(g, p);
> 2. Is it safe to use rcu_read_lock() and task_lock() when scanning the
> corresponding kernel stack (thread_info structure)? The loop doesn't
> do any modification to the task list. The reason for this is to
> allow kernel preemption when scanning the stacks.
you cannot generally preempt while holding the RCU read-lock.
Ingo
--
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