[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090722161809.GH6757@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:18:09 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kmemleak: Scan all thread stacks
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 07:01:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 17:57 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 18:43 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > This may work with rcupreempt enabled. But, with classic RCU is it safe
> > to call schedule (or cond_resched) while holding the RCU read-lock?
>
> No.
What Peter said! ;-)
However, you might be able to use SRCU (http://lwn.net/Articles/202847/),
which does allow blocking within read-side critical sections.
Thanx, Paul
--
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